Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

Lucky7Strikes · January 3, 2012

I already described it to you. Go figure. Or check out Kalaka Sutta. No time to reply any more for now.

Why do I need to check out the Kalaka Sutta. I don't care about the Kalaka Sutta. I care about what you say.

Also, you haven't. You had the one about the Buddha not running into a wall. And I said of course that is a learned response and not some spontaneous wisdom.

You mentioned the direct experience of pain from a needle. But I listed examples why this is not necessary direct or spontaneous but only seems so. This was my reply:

"When someone pokes you with a needle, it is never just "pain." There are all sorts of associative experiences that happen with it, like the location of the pain, the seriousness of it, if there are any further threats of it to the body, previous notions of being hit with a needle. (Conceptual and indirect does not mean that your feelings are formed into sentence structures in the brain, but rather that the experience is framed in a preconceived manner or when experienced, is being framed into a certain way of personal experience, a filter so to speak). Before a needle hits you your anticipated response to the event changes how the needle's pain is experienced. Have you ever had something painful happen expectedly vs. unexpectedly? It's very different. So even before the needle hits you, how you experience it is altered by all kinds of indirect factors. It's like having a whole sea of unconscious mind below the conscious mind when you are reacting to an event or surroundings."

And your response was a meager: "It is more spontaneous if experienced unexpectedly." So are you equating unexpectedness to direct experience? So you live without any anticipations? Do you think that is even possible? How would you even take a step on the ground without the fear that it will be hollow then?

You said looking into the sunset. And, I mentioned how you were just describing sensory experience of warmth, the light, which are all recognized within the framework of the senses: the sun's warmth is felt when you recognize the temperature via your skin. The light when you notice the vision of the sun and so on. The knowledge that it is the sun is also a learned acknowledgment. See, none of these are solely the direct experience of the sun. They are partial, categorical, learned.

And then you denied the existence of the sun. That one couldn't directly experience the sun. So you altered your point to say that direct experience was just experiencing the temperature, texture, shape, movement without labeling them. But do you remember what we said about labeling? The discussion about how people don't label themselves "I" all the time, but live with a habitual sense of self, that it is the habitual action that is the problem not the conscious labeling of oneself? Labeling is unimportant.

So then you started just defining "direct experience" again rather than giving me examples. That direct experience was the "experience of shapes, colors, and forms without the sense of a seer, anatta, and PCE, in seeing just seen, blah blah. I'm not interested in your definitions. I asked for examples of direct experience and so far the instance in which you thought was spontaneous and direct have not been so. I would also like to know how you have used this direct experiencing to realize dependent origination without inference or reason. But please do reply to the above post that I made before you reply to this one.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 4, 2012

I already described it to you. Go figure. Or check out Kalaka Sutta. No time to reply any more for now.

I just read the Kalaka Sutta. It's basically: "hey, do this, because I tell you, and I'm a Buddha." I don't think you'd be a wise student to just take those claims on authority.

Anyways, describe a daily example of experiencing life that way. You probably can't. And please reply to the rest of what I wrote. If you want to end the discussion tell me so I can know that after a certain point you can't answer for yourself.

xabir2005 · January 6, 2012

When I read replies like this, I start to think you are no longer worth having a discussion with. I mean, just trace this part of the conversation back. You basically mentioned that you were right because others had similar experiences as you.

No, I did say I am right and that many others had similar experiences but they are two issues. My point was that what I discovered can be seen by anyone because it is a plain fact waiting to be discovered by doing some investigation and contemplation, it is not a 'reserved' truth.

Describe an experience without a framework then! Describe to me this direct and spontaneous experience and wisdom that isn't learned. I've asked you this repeatedly and every time you cannot give me an answer when supposedly this is how you experience life daily.

Those are just examples pointing out the possibility of spontaneous, non-conceptual experiences, which are aspects of wisdom but not the totality of it. In other words experience of spontaneity, non-conceptual experiences (which everyone has experienced some time in their life) does not indicate wisdom. Even NDNCDIMOP does not indicate wisdom. It may simply be a peak experience. Wisdom must arise from realization, the realization of twofold emptiness that turns deluded cognition into correct cognition, in other words cognition undeluded by any false views of inherent self or objects.

As an example? There is no example for an ignorant person: only Buddhas are able to comprehend wisdom. The most I can describe is like Kalaka sutta: in seeing there is just the suchness of the seen without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (luminous yet illusory).

How do you know you are not reifying "non-reification" instead? But focus on the former: describe an experience without a framework.

It's like asking "how do you know you are not reifying a moon made of green chase?" "how do you know you are not reifying a santa claus?" I do not, because I do not see a moon made of green cheese nor do I believe in something called santa claus. Similarly, I do not see anything inherent or graspable called "non-reification".

What? I don't think you understood what I meant. You said frameworks need to be investigated to be realized. Now they need to be "univestigated"? And how is there a resolution to that?

You are confusing me with your own confusion of me. :lol:

Or maybe I didn't explain myself well.

I am saying, uninvestigated framework of viewing self and things dualistically and inherently must be seen through and relinquished, but it can only be done so by realization.

Mhmm, and how do you know this? What support do you have for these claims. Direct experience? Well, your explanations sure don't seem like it! "A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world" Uh...excuse me? Again, let's just do this by indented sentences.

1. A is independent of B and C

2. A is manifestation of B and C, thus it is independent of B and C

3. So A is dependent and unconditioned.

So statement 2 is contradicting itself. And statements 2 and 3 directly contradict each other (A is independent, therefore it is dependent). What are you trying to say?

A is a new phenomenon and thus disjoint from B and C, but it is the manifestation of the causal interaction of B and C, so it is like the universe is manifesting as A - a complete, whole, non-dual phenomenon.

Another analogy: under dualistic framework, we misinterprete dependent origination to mean subject reflecting external conditions.

But actually this is not the case - in seeing just the seen - dependent origination means the whole universe of all causes and condition exerting itself into JUST A - so "A" contains all of "Not A" but is itself 'unconditioned' (not subject interacting external objects) 'complete-in-itself' manifestation of 'Just A'.

I might post something later on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan which I think is good.

First of all, people seeing a flower as different appearances does not deny the flower's core. Just because something appears differently in varying situations does not mean its ultimate existence is questionable. You have no grounds (well, at least the way you are presenting it) to come to that "final analysis." The flower may indeed have a core,

The point is that there is no core behind appearances, since appearances dependently originate without substantiality. It is not that 'flower has no core' but 'there is no flower-core or flower-ness behind an appearance conventionally labelled as flower'. To say 'flower has no core' or 'self has no core' already suppose that there is a self.

But when we say appearances are empty of core, we merely reject the view of existence since appearance that dependently originate are empty of any inherent core.

But anyway what we realize is that all manifestation dependently originate, all phenomenon dependently originates and thus are empty of any inherent existence. Therefore, a flower cannot be established - phenomenon dependently originate. There is no 'a flower' since all phenomenon dependently originates and thus are empty. This is the case for all phenomenon and not just phenomenon experienced subjectively.

When we realize that what appears dependently originates and is empty, we are not saying 'everything experienced is just mental events so whatever experienced are illusory' (in this case it just means whatever experienced is mental and illusory but does not say anything about phenomenon beyond subjective awareness) but 'all phenomenon dependently originates and are empty of any inherent core, substance, locatable essence that can be pinned down', in other words dependent origination and emptiness applies and is the nature of all phenomenon, mind or matter. (Ultimately, there is no mind and no matter, since all phenomenon mind or matter dependently originate and are fundamentally empty, mind and matter are just conventions about a bunch of illusory empty phenomenon.)

This is why I said earlier that this is not about denying what we observe nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only appears in dependence on other phenomena.

it may indeed even have awareness or some essential make up of flowerness that cannot be broken down. Perhaps you're just seeing it partially due to your own vision, as you said we might not be able to see that core with our eyes. But moreover, why are you "telling me" (yes yes keep telling me without supporting you claims ) that the flower is a dependently originated phenomenon? How do you know that? (Don't say inferred knowledge. Remember, you saw all this through your direct experience).

By first realizing anatta and then further penetrating and seeing everything as dependently originated activities, followed by a deeper insight into the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is nothing inferred.

In the Buddhist understanding of things, plants in itself does not have consciousness but then a spirit may 'take residence' in a tree or plant. Let's not even talk about plants. Let's talk about people and animals. Obviously, people and animals have consciousness. But does that mean 'consciousness' is an entity that is located and residing in a particular location in the human body? Not really, as consciousness is fundamentally empty and dependently origianted as well, empty of any core or location. But it can appear to an untrained mind that consciousness is located somewhere as an atomic entity or soul. This is not the case when anatta and emptiness is realized - consciousness is simply a mental experience without subject and object, without localization. It is not something you can pin down in one part of the body and say 'there it is!'

So even if plants have awareness (which they don't) that doens't mean plants have an independent, inherent existence. Awareness and consciousness are also anatta, dependently originated, and empty. Having consciousness does not mean there is a Self. How do I know that? Anatta and Emptiness is the nature of all phenomenon and this is realized to be the case, non-inferentially. One realizes that the whole view of 'seer-seeing-seen', the whole view of agency, of a self-entity is completely delusional. There is no such thing! Never was there a 'self'. It is as delusional as the delusion of the existence of moon made of green cheese, rabbits with horn, santa claus, etc.

And as for your logic that there is no mind and no matter...what? Your argument for that is that because they are distinguished conventionally, they don't exist. So now your definition of something's existence is that it has to be distinguished?

Uh no, I never said there was 'existence'. I mean since all things are empty, whatever labels 'mind', 'matter' are mere conventions like 'weather' or 'river' but actually don't point to an inherent, locatable core or substance of things.

Oh god. Let me help you out......perhaps..the thought you were trying to find would have probably been, while you were typing the above sentence, "No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now." Pin it down somewhere? Why are you trying to pin it down somewhere when it's not in front of you? Do you try to pin down your kidneys to see if they are there too? Your thoughts are likely in you head ok? Destination? HAhahah! Does a teddy bear have a destination? Since when did having a destination mean something was substantial or non illusory? Also with "origin." When did the knowledge of something's origin negate or confrim its existence? You're just tossing words here.

Thought is something you can observe in plain sight (not in the visual sense but in the mental sense) so obviously it is not hiding somewhere like your kidneys (if you presume the existence of kidneys). The presumption is that what is observed has its location somewhere, but when you look at where thought abides, where it comes from and where it goes to, the thought-ness of thought cannot be found, non-arisen and no-cessation. Thought is seen to be a magical apparition, illusory, dream-like. The same goes to all sense perceptions as well. Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 6, 2012

You said looking into the sunset. And, I mentioned how you were just describing sensory experience of warmth, the light, which are all recognized within the framework of the senses: the sun's warmth is felt when you recognize the temperature via your skin. The light when you notice the vision of the sun and so on. The knowledge that it is the sun is also a learned acknowledgment. See, none of these are solely the direct experience of the sun. They are partial, categorical, learned.

And then you denied the existence of the sun. That one couldn't directly experience the sun. So you altered your point to say that direct experience was just experiencing the temperature, texture, shape, movement without labeling them. But do you remember what we said about labeling? The discussion about how people don't label themselves "I" all the time, but live with a habitual sense of self, that it is the habitual action that is the problem not the conscious labeling of oneself? Labeling is unimportant.

A newborn baby doesn't have habitual labeling of things and yet he is able to respond to light, see the sun, etc, of course he doesn't cognize 'the sun' or 'the light' but if it is too bright he spontaneously close his eyes and if something is too hot he cries, even if it is the first time he experienced it in his life.

I'm not saying wisdom is the same as a baby since babies are ignorant of conventions while those who are awakened knows conventions, but are not trapped by them. They know convention so they can understand language and make use of language but they do not believe or view truly existing self or things. But my point is that the state of not viewing conventions as truly existing, and spontaneous response (like a baby) is possible.

Or another analogy: when you see a lump of thing in front of you, you don't know what the hell that lump of thing is, so it is just pure vision. But when as you went closer, you recognised "Oh that is gold!" And so it becomes an object of grasping and craving. So it is not the case that all our experiences are learnt, as before we recognized it as gold, we don't know what the hell it is.

So then you started just defining "direct experience" again rather than giving me examples. That direct experience was the "experience of shapes, colors, and forms without the sense of a seer, anatta, and PCE, in seeing just seen, blah blah. I'm not interested in your definitions. I asked for examples of direct experience and so far the instance in which you thought was spontaneous and direct have not been so. I would also like to know how you have used this direct experiencing to realize dependent origination without inference or reason. But please do reply to the above post that I made before you reply to this one.

I remember mentioning it used to be spectacular 'Wow' moments of peak experiences, but now after anatta realization it has become my effortless natural state without entry and exit, so it is a bit weird for me to talk in terms of 'an instance' as if it is one special particular moment, since it is also this very particular instance of my typing on the keyboard now, just this is enlightenment, buddha-nature, perfection, primordial purity, etc.

But if you want to know the first time NDNCDIMOP happened, that was in 2006, I can remember looking out of the window when suddenly the sense of an observer inside my head looking outwards, the sense of distance between 'me the observer' and 'the tree out there' completely vanish and there is for a few moments only the tree, swaying of the branches and leaves with a crystal like clarity in amazing lucidity and details and aliveness. It was truly wonderful and amazing. But then the sense of me returned very quickly and I longed to return to it but don't know how to. I went to the Buddhist forum and wrote about how the seeing is the trees, the scenery, etc, that I am not a seer but I am the seeing, the seen, etc. That was way before I had any realization, only a momentary peak experience (which occurred from time to time since then until realization of anatta made it natural and effortless without entering/exiting)

Edited January 7, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 6, 2012

Anyway the thing about Dogen I was talking about earlier:

Realizing Genjo Koan – Shohaku Okumura

In our practice we just sit with our bodies and minds in the zendo, and we aim to practice the Buddha Way in our activities outside the zendo as well. In practicing the Buddha Way there is no separation between the self that is studying the self and the self that is studied by the self; self is studying the self, and the act of studying is also the self. There is no such thing as a self that is separate from our activity. Dogen Zenji defined this self as jijuyu-zanmai, a term that Sawaki Kodo Roshi described as “self ‘selfing’ the self.'”

To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. if the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind.

Running as well as sitting, eating, drinking, and breathing are very ordinary things. But when we say, “There is no ‘I’ other than running” or “running without a runner,” we think we are discussing something mysterious. but this view of the teachings of people such as Nagarjuna or Dogen is mistaken. These teachers are trying to express a very ordinary thing in a truly realistic way without fabrication. To do this they use words that negate themselves in a way that reveals the reality beyond our thoughts.

When we practice the Buddha Way, there is no self, no Buddha Way, no others. This is because self, Buddha Way, and others work together as one. What we call “our actions” are actually the work done by both self and other beings and objects. For example, when a person drives a car, the person thinks “he” as subject drives “the car” as object. But in reality we cannot drive without the car; we can only become a driver or be driven with the aid of the car, and the car can only express its full function as a vehicle of transportation when someone drives it. Our cars affect us both psychologically and materially as well. We will drive different cars in different ways, for example, depending upon the style or quality of the car. The feelings and attitude of a person driving a cheap old truck carrying a load of junk will likely be totally different from the feelings and attitude that person will have driving a luxurious new car carrying a VIP. A car can also provide us with the ability to travel quickly and conveniently, yet if it breaks down, we may have to make more effort than usual to get where we need to go repair, fuel, and insurance costs can exert an added financial stress on our lives and can even feel burdensome. So in a sense the car own us and shapes us as much as we own and control it, and the action of driving can actually be manifested only by a person and a car working together. This reality of mutual influence and interconnectedness is true not only for a “special” practice done by a group of people called “Buddhists”; in truth this is the way all beings are working within the circle of interdependent origination.

The Buddha Way includes both self and objects. The Buddha Way includes both people sitting and the sitting they do. They are actually one thing. This is very difficult to explain, yet it is an obvious reality of our lives. This reality is not some special state or condition that is only accomplished by so-called “enlightened” people. Even when we don’t realize it, self, action, and object are working together as one reality, so we don’t need to train ourselves to make them into one thing in our minds. If self, action, and object were really three separate things, they could not become one. The truth is that they are always one reality, regardless of what we do or think.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

Birch · January 7, 2012

I noticed it's changed from "dependent origination" to "interdependent origination".

That's interesting.

xabir2005 · January 7, 2012

I noticed it's changed from "dependent origination" to "interdependent origination".

That's interesting.

It's the same actually. Interdependent origination expresses the seamlessness of all causes and conditions like in the net of indra http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/net-of-indra.html

Lucky7Strikes · January 7, 2012

xabir2005 · January 7, 2012

:blink:

Ok...santa claus and moon are nouns. Reifying is a verb. You don't "see" verbs. You do them. And sometimes we do things we are very unaware of doing while doing them. That's the whole point of this discussion.

Reifying only happens when you see something inherent and solid, like a moon made of green cheese and a truly existing santa claus (for example). I don't see a truly existing 'non-reifying' so I don't reify 'non-reifying'. Since I do not assert/view/establish a truly existing thing or the non-existence of a thing, I do not grasp on them.

...I want you to give me an example of such a thing as "disjointed causal manifestation/interaction" because, well because that's just downright contradictory.

As for you whole "Just A" fiasco, so what happens after this "Just A" phenomenon.

Then it is Just B and Just C.

Like the Zen masters say. When sitting, just sit. When eating apple, just eating apple, and it is as if the whole universe is eating apple (all causes and conditions manifest as eating apple).

A monk comes to the monastery of Master Zhaozhou and asks for instruction. The master asks him, “Have you had your breakfast?” The monk says that he has. “Then wash your bowls,” is the Master’s reply, and the only instruction he offers.

And how long exactly is this "unit" of manifestation, "complete in itself," last? A second? A milisecond?

In abhidhamma, they talk about time units and milliseconds etc, which is interesting but I don't study abhidhamma and I don't remember numbers well.

Ultimately, the transience turns out to be timeless, complete, whole, and yet self-releasing. You don't experience movement even though there is change (but no changing things).

Moreover, how will it interact with another "D" phenomenon to produce a completely new "E" phenomenon, since you know, there is still the next moment that's about to come up while you are still in the "A" phenomenon. Where exactly do all these interactions take place?

There is no real 'where' because what dependently originates is empty of a locatable core or essence. What dependently originates is empty, means empty of locatable core. 'A' is thus empty of 'A-ness'.

There are two insights and experiences - the Maha experience (integrating anatta with dependent origination) described above, which Zen and Zen Master Dogen emphasizes, and the 'dependently originated is empty of a locatable core and thus illusory, dream-like' which Mahamudra and Dzogchen emphasizes. We should integrate these two insights, then we will understand these two traditions. But on the other hand, a pure Zennist may not understand Mahamudra, and Mahamudra person may not understand a Zennist because their emphasis and practice is different. But it does not mean one insight is less valuable than another, therefore we should integrate them.

And how do you see them directly without leaving the "A" phenomenon? Give me some concrete examples here because you are speaking gibberish.

Everything becomes a process of interconnected activities. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions, all comes together and then manifests itself as the drumbeat sound - and in that sound JUST the sound but it is the entire universe coming together and manifesting the sound. This can lead to the Maha sort of insight and experience.

You may want to read the Genjokoan article I typed out more carefully.

Actually in daoist interpretations oppressed mental blockages reside in specific organs. In modern science thoughts are presumed to be produced by the brain. Also, since you keep bringing up the issue of location as some sort of evidence, things with substance don't have to be locatable at a certain place, you know, they can uh, move around.

As for this: "The presumption is that what is observed has its location somewhere, but when you look at where thought abides, where it comes from and where it goes to, the thought-ness of thought cannot be found, non-arisen and no-cessation."

I experience thinking in my head. It's where is abides, comes from. So I found where it happens. And of course it doesn't go anywhere because it's an activity. It's like asking, "hey where does running go to?" I don't get what you mean by thoughtness of thought. Why is it like a magical apparition again?

Thoughts being produced by brain does not mean thought = brain or thought happens in brain, but anyway I do not hold such materialistic views.

Also, the notion that thoughts abide and come from the head is not something that holds up to experiential investigation. Thought and sense perceptions are appearances that dependently originates and are empty of any locatable essence.

The principle of dependent origination and emptiness is not too difficult to understand conceptually, but to realize it experientially is not as simple, which is why Buddha calls it a very deep truth. First realize anatta, otherwise D.O. will be misunderstood.

The principle is as such:

“That which arose from conditions is unborn; It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence. Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.”

-Gungthang Tempai Drome

One last point: emptiness isn't just not finding the whereabouts and location of something, it means there is no CORE of something, therefore no location. As I said before you can realize I AM and say it is not locatable, but it is not realizing anatta or emptiness.

In other words saying I AM is not locatable is not the same as realizing no self, not finding the whereabout of thought does not mean realizing 'no thought'. Realization of emptiness means realizing no core of thought thus no locatable core of thought, it is dependently originated and empty. But the realization is not just about 'not finding the whereabouts'.

I'm rushing out so I'll stop here.

Edited January 7, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 7, 2012

A newborn baby doesn't have habitual labeling of things and yet he is able to respond to light, see the sun, etc, of course he doesn't cognize 'the sun' or 'the light' but if it is too bright he spontaneously close his eyes and if something is too hot he cries, even if it is the first time he experienced it in his life.

I'm not saying wisdom is the same as a baby since babies are ignorant of conventions while those who are awakened knows conventions, but are not trapped by them. They know convention so they can understand language and make use of language but they do not believe or view truly existing self or things.

But my point is that the state of not viewing conventions as truly existing, and spontaneous response (like a baby) is possible.

If it's the former, then it's not spontaneous or direct, since whilst experiencing (conventions), they have knowledge about that experience. Also to relate it to what you wrote above:

Those are just examples pointing out the possibility of spontaneous, non-conceptual experiences, which are aspects of wisdom but not the totality of it. In other words experience of spontaneity, non-conceptual experiences (which everyone has experienced some time in their life) does not indicate wisdom. Even NDNCDIMOP does not indicate wisdom. It may simply be a peak experience. Wisdom must arise from realization, the realization of twofold emptiness that turns deluded cognition into correct cognition, in other words cognition undeluded by any false views of inherent self or objects.

As an example? There is no example for an ignorant person: only Buddhas are able to comprehend wisdom. The most I can describe is like Kalaka sutta: in seeing there is just the suchness of the seen without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (luminous yet illusory).

So...in the seen, do they also have the knowledge about the "seen" (you know the whole thing you wrote above about experiencing conventions while knowing they are not truly existing). Then that's not just "suchness" of the seen is it?

Or another analogy: when you see a lump of thing in front of you, you don't know what the hell that lump of thing is, so it is just pure vision. But when as you went closer, you recognised "Oh that is gold!" And so it becomes an object of grasping and craving. So it is not the case that all our experiences are learnt, as before we recognized it as gold, we don't know what the hell it is.

Rethink this analogy. See if you not knowing what is is a learned response or not.

I remember mentioning it used to be spectacular 'Wow' moments of peak experiences, but now after anatta realization it has become my effortless natural state without entry and exit, so it is a bit weird for me to talk in terms of 'an instance' as if it is one special particular moment, since it is also this very particular instance of my typing on the keyboard now, just this is enlightenment, buddha-nature, perfection, primordial purity, etc.

But if you want to know the first time NDNCDIMOP happened, that was in 2006, I can remember looking out of the window when suddenly the sense of an observer inside my head looking outwards, the sense of distance between 'me the observer' and 'the tree out there' completely vanish and there is for a few moments only the tree, swaying of the branches and leaves with a crystal like clarity in amazing lucidity and details and aliveness. It was truly wonderful and amazing. But then the sense of me returned very quickly and I longed to return to it but don't know how to. I went to the Buddhist forum and wrote about how the seeing is the trees, the scenery, etc, that I am not a seer but I am the seeing, the seen, etc. That was way before I had any realization, only a momentary peak experience (which occurred from time to time since then until realization of anatta made it natural and effortless without entering/exiting)

But you knew the tree, that it was in fact a tree. What you got rid of was that there was someone watching the tree out there and decided to just let the tree be the sole experience for that moment.

Your realization so far has been baseless and the logic that supports it is nonsense. So all you did was make this peak experience the definitive reality on all occasions. It doesn't make it any truer.

Gerard · January 8, 2012

Why should I? And why do you think it is stupid?

Burn it, it's useless.

If you are attached to it you still have to deal with craving for sensual desire.

You still have a belief in your self.

I don't feel you have reached the stream entry level "yet" as you are dealing with A&P (involved in this great spiritual project of writing a book).

I hope you don't are not offended with my comments.

Keep practicing as you are in a very good position to go far.

All the best.

xabir2005 · January 8, 2012

Burn it, it's useless.

If you are attached to it you still have to deal with craving for sensual desire.

You still have a belief in your self.

I don't feel you have reached the stream entry level "yet" as you are dealing with A&P (involved in this great spiritual project of writing a book).

I hope you don't are not offended with my comments.

Keep practicing as you are in a very good position to go far.

All the best.

I do not have a belief in self.

I find that even after going through the technical four paths, Daniel's insights on anatta still does not cover as much as I did.

Also, my path does not go through the nanas as it is a different path, just as the path of Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, or even non-Buddhist paths like Advaita, AF and so on does not go through 16 nanas.

I call my path a direct path.

p.s. of course, I do not consider Daniel's four paths as the same as Buddha's fetter model four paths. I find Daniel's so called Arhatship is in fact closer to Buddha's stream entry.

You should also consider the fact that I was considered by moderators in Dharma Overground (Daniel's forum) to have attained Arhatship even though I do not consider myself an Arhat in the traditional sense.

Also, having achieved Kenneth Folk's 7th stage of enlightenment under his 7 stages of enlightenment model which extends even beyond the technical four paths, he told me that I was an 'exceptional yogi' to have seen through the illusion of self at the age of 20.

Just because you are not attached to something doesn't mean you have to burn it - it is question of whether it is sensible to do so. Many people have benefitted from my e-book, so I shall not do it.

Edited January 8, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 8, 2012

If it's the former, then it's not spontaneous or direct, since whilst experiencing (conventions), they have knowledge about that experience. Also to relate it to what you wrote above:

So...in the seen, do they also have the knowledge about the "seen" (you know the whole thing you wrote above about experiencing conventions while knowing they are not truly existing). Then that's not just "suchness" of the seen is it?

Rethink this analogy. See if you not knowing what is is a learned response or not.

Having knowledge of conventions is not the same as establishing the convention as real.

When I see something, I am free of conventions. The only usage of convention is when I am communicating with others. And I know that they are fundamentally false.

For example, when you see a car, you don't need to know "it is a car" in order to start driving. The convention "it is a car" is utterly useless except for practical communication purpose. The car is simply a label imputed on a composite, and the composite works dependently to produce a function called 'driving', and the entire composite and interdependently originated process of activities are all fundamentally empty of an entity called 'car'. There is no car. But conventionally for linguistic purpose, we label it and call it a car. But in real life, I do not conceive of 'car', I do not establish a 'car', there is just the suchness of the seen, the spontaneous activity of driving (without establishing anything), etc. You can work perfectly well not conceiving of conventions.

It is the termination of all signs.

Nagarjuna says, "The elements do not themselves exist individually,

So how could their own individual characters exist?

What do not themselves indiivdually exist cannot predominate.

Their characters are regarded as conventionalities.

...

Other than as the imputation of a convention

What world is there in fact

Which would exist or not?"

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

But you knew the tree, that it was in fact a tree. What you got rid of was that there was someone watching the tree out there and decided to just let the tree be the sole experience for that moment.

There was no idea of 'tree' at the moment of seeing. It is on reflection that I made those statements. It is more accurate to say 'there is just shapes, colours, movements, light', and then even those are empty - my point is that there is just the direct perception of the appearance without conceiving of anything at that moment of perception.

You know when you hear music, you simply enjoy the music right? You don't even have a second thought about what music it is, you just enjoy it.

Does that mean I don't have view of inherency at that time? Of course not. It just means the view of inherency is not manifesting itself in a form of conceptualization, in other words it is in its latent mode and non-manifesting mode so to speak.

When twofold emptiness realization arises, even the latent view is then removed.

Your realization so far has been baseless and the logic that supports it is nonsense. So all you did was make this peak experience the definitive reality on all occasions. It doesn't make it any truer.

My realization is based on realizing that always already there never was a self, a seer that is seeing the seen, in reality in seeing just the seen. That entire framework of duality and inherency is utterly delusional and fabricated.

It has nothing to do with making peak experience definitive.

There are a lot of people who have peak experiences, but very rarely do you see people who have direct insight of anatta.

Edited January 8, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 8, 2012

Reifying only happens when you see something inherent and solid, like a moon made of green cheese and a truly existing santa claus (for example). I don't see a truly existing 'non-reifying' so I don't reify 'non-reifying'. Since I do not assert/view/establish a truly existing thing or the non-existence of a thing, I do not grasp on them.

...no...that's not what happens when the mind "reifies" things. You are not getting attached to an object or the santa claus, you are becoming attached to the beliefs in them. Believing is a act, a verb. You reify your own actions. On the surface to an assuming eye it appears that you are reifyng the objects, but really its the state of mind that is being given an entity. The process is like this: you clench your fist. Then you clench for it too long and forget what it feels to unclench it. Then the clenching of the fist becomes like an object, "a clenching fist."

Then it is Just B and Just C.

Doesn't it have to "interact" with something to make B? If you say just, A then B then C, how do you know A comes from a cause since all you are experiencing is A then B then C, as in, only the manifested effects?

Like the Zen masters say. When sitting, just sit. When eating apple, just eating apple, and it is as if the whole universe is eating apple (all causes and conditions manifest as eating apple).

A monk comes to the monastery of Master Zhaozhou and asks for instruction. The master asks him, “Have you had your breakfast?” The monk says that he has. “Then wash your bowls,” is the Master’s reply, and the only instruction he offers.

In abhidhamma, they talk about time units and milliseconds etc, which is interesting but I don't study abhidhamma and I don't remember numbers well.

Ultimately, the transience turns out to be timeless, complete, whole, and yet self-releasing. You don't experience movement even though there is change (but no changing things).

There is no real 'where' because what dependently originates is empty of a locatable core or essence. What dependently originates is empty, means empty of locatable core. 'A' is thus empty of 'A-ness'.

There are two insights and experiences - the Maha experience (integrating anatta with dependent origination) described above, which Zen and Zen Master Dogen emphasizes, and the 'dependently originated is empty of a locatable core and thus illusory, dream-like' which Mahamudra and Dzogchen emphasizes. We should integrate these two insights, then we will understand these two traditions. But on the other hand, a pure Zennist may not understand Mahamudra, and Mahamudra person may not understand a Zennist because their emphasis and practice is different. But it does not mean one insight is less valuable than another, therefore we should integrate them.

You are not answering my questions but stating your convictions again. For the millionth time, I am inquiring into the question of HOW. Do you understand this word? I am going to write it a few times so you really understand it.

HOW? HOW? HOW?

And I don't care what Zen thinks or what Mahamudra thinks or whoever thins this or that. Repeating these two points is becoming very tiresome. So I'm going to write this point repeatedly again for you.

I DON'T CARE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE THINKS. I CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK AND HOW YOU"VE COME TO THAT REALIZATION.

Ok?

Anyways, you talked about these units of phenomena to explain dependent origination. So you need to define what this unit of phenomenon A is before we have the next phenomenon B. You mentioned "sitting" and "eating an apple.' Are they different phenomena? What about when you sit and eat an apple? Then are A and B happening simultaneously?

You also missed the reason I asked you "where does the interaction of B and C happen." I asked you that question because you said phenomena A comes from the interaction of B and C, and you said that you knew this from direct experiencing. So how do you directly experience the cause and the effect simultaneously whilst in moment A to know the difference?

So if we go back to (sheesh, another borrowed example, one recycled for maybe six years now from Thusness) your example of:

"Everything becomes a process of interconnected activities. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions, all comes together and then manifests itself as the drumbeat sound - and in that sound JUST the sound but it is the entire universe coming together and manifesting the sound. This can lead to the Maha sort of insight and experience."

Whilst hearing the sound of the bell, how do you also know the causalities including "the person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, etc." Also since you have to move onto a new phenomenon C, and A needs to interact with another phenomenon to produce it, whilst experiencing "just A," the sound, how will you experience it interacting with a phenomenon B to produce C?

Moreover, this is not an example of disjoint causal manifestation. The person, the stick, the bell, are not disjointed. They are actually connected seamlessly in one fluid motion. Is the hitting apart from the bell and the stick and the air? Where does the person end and the stick begin for you to say definitively that they are disjointed? Where does the sound become disjointed from the vibration of the face of the drum that enters the ear and is perceived as the sound of the bell?

Thoughts being produced by brain does not mean thought = brain or thought happens in brain, but anyway I do not hold such materialistic views.

Also, the notion that thoughts abide and come from the head is not something that holds up to experiential investigation. Thought and sense perceptions are appearances that dependently originates and are empty of any locatable essence.

Ok, again, these are just blatant statements. For the first sentence, I didn't say thought = the brain. But it could as well be that the brain's activity is what we tend to experience as thoughts, just as nerve cells are what we experience as certain feelings. If you don't hold materialistic views, you need to explain why you don't. This is a question addressed in the other thread also. Why do you not hold materialistic views?

As for the second sentence, why doesn't it hold to your experiential investigation that thoughts do or do not abide in the head. These are just meaningless definitive statements you are tossing around. Please explain instead of just spouting paragraphs of "empty because d.o. because empty, just luminous" bullcrap so we can have an actual discussion. Why does dependent origination, basically the principle of causation, negate location? Location is merely a relative term for where something is. Why does dependent origination deny it?

As for your claims of "no essence," why does the principle of causation deny the existence of an essence? To take your example, if A and B interact to make a completely new C, why is that the reason to deny that C has an essence? In fact, it seems that this idea supports the essence of appearances.

Essence means:

1. The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, esp. something abstract, that determines its character.

2. A property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

You clearly distinguish a new phenomena apart from the phenomena that causes it. Hence that defines this totally new phenomena, it gives it an "essence," a definition. The property of C is that is is distinct cause of A and B.

The principle of dependent origination and emptiness is not too difficult to understand conceptually, but to realize it experientially is not as simple, which is why Buddha calls it a very deep truth. First realize anatta, otherwise D.O. will be misunderstood.

Actually, I think on the contrary. The principle of dependent origination is very difficult to understand conceptually and applying to reality is as difficult. The fact that you think it's simple shows that you haven't given it much contemplation on the meaning of cause and effect, and more importantly the knowledge of cause and effect.

What you are missing in all these replies is a sort of insight into insight. You need to examine your own insights more carefully, in line not with the question, "what I know," but rather "how do I know."

Edited January 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 8, 2012

I call my path a direct path.

p.s. of course, I do not consider Daniel's four paths as the same as Buddha's fetter model four paths. I find Daniel's so called Arhatship is in fact closer to Buddha's stream entry.

You should also consider the fact that I was considered by moderators in Dharma Overground (Daniel's forum) to have attained Arhatship even though I do not consider myself an Arhat in the traditional sense.

Also, having achieved Kenneth Folk's 7th stage of enlightenment under his 7 stages of enlightenment model which extends even beyond the technical four paths, he told me that I was an 'exceptional yogi' to have seen through the illusion of self at the age of 20.

Just because you are not attached to something doesn't mean you have to burn it - it is question of whether it is sensible to do so. Many people have benefitted from my e-book, so I shall not do it.

Good for you, you exceptional yogi. :rolleyes:

Lucky7Strikes · January 8, 2012

Having knowledge of conventions is not the same as establishing the convention as real.

Mhmm, and that makes it not some "spontaneous arising" either, since you have an idea (conventions) and an another idea about that idea (that it isn't real).

When I see something, I am free of conventions. The only usage of convention is when I am communicating with others. And I know that they are fundamentally false.

For example, when you see a car, you don't need to know "it is a car" in order to start driving. The convention "it is a car" is utterly useless except for practical communication purpose. The car is simply a label imputed on a composite, and the composite works dependently to produce a function called 'driving', and the entire composite and interdependently originated process of activities are all fundamentally empty of an entity called 'car'. There is no car. But conventionally for linguistic purpose, we label it and call it a car. But in real life, I do not conceive of 'car', I do not establish a 'car', there is just the suchness of the seen, the spontaneous activity of driving (without establishing anything), etc. You can work perfectly well not conceiving of conventions.

If you do not conceive of the conventions that it is a car, how will you know that it is a car or that it is something you can "drive"?

You are not looking enough into the mind but just blinded by mere experience. Of course you conceive of a car, it just does not cross your mind in the form of language, "this is a car," but through habitual reaction. If you take an alien being and put him in front of a car, he won't recognize what it is. He will have a totally different habitual contextualization to the experience of seeing the car. He won't know any of what you wrote above, its purpose to drive, what it is composed of.

There was no idea of 'tree' at the moment of seeing. It is on reflection that I made those statements. It is more accurate to say 'there is just shapes, colours, movements, light', and then even those are empty - my point is that there is just the direct perception of the appearance without conceiving of anything at that moment of perception.

You know when you hear music, you simply enjoy the music right? You don't even have a second thought about what music it is, you just enjoy it.

If there were just shapes colors and movement, how could you reflect later that it was a tree you saw?

Second, when I am hearing music, my mind is at once interacting with the music according to many variables that have conditioned that experience of listening beforehand. For example, someone who had been listening his lifetime classical music, if you give him some Ramones (punk) music, he would think it's garbage. Yet if a punk fan listens to it, it's sheer brilliance. So no one "just listens to music."

Does that mean I don't have view of inherency at that time? Of course not. It just means the view of inherency is not manifesting itself in a form of conceptualization, in other words it is in its latent mode and non-manifesting mode so to speak.

When twofold emptiness realization arises, even the latent view is then removed.

My realization is based on realizing that always already there never was a self, a seer that is seeing the seen, in reality in seeing just the seen. That entire framework of duality and inherency is utterly delusional and fabricated.

Hahahahaha! Did you read the last sentence there? "My realization is based on realizing." Great explanation there. Realization is based on realization! :lol:

Edited January 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 8, 2012

...no...that's not what happens when the mind "reifies" things. You are not getting attached to an object or the santa claus, you are becoming attached to the beliefs in them. Believing is a act, a verb. You reify your own actions. On the surface to an assuming eye it appears that you are reifyng the objects, but really its the state of mind that is being given an entity. The process is like this: you clench your fist. Then you clench for it too long and forget what it feels to unclench it. Then the clenching of the fist becomes like an object, "a clenching fist."

Reifying objects and reifying action is still fundamentally the same - you still establish something existing. I do not establish anything.

Doesn't it have to "interact" with something to make B? If you say just, A then B then C, how do you know A comes from a cause since all you are experiencing is A then B then C, as in, only the manifested effects?

You can observe the entire process of activities as coming forth via conditions, when the entire sense of self/Self is seen through, deconstructed, and utterly dropped, then the entire experience is clearly seen as a causal process.

It is not an inferrential thing, nonetheless it is experienced that every manifestation is a causal activity. Of course, you don't even establish causality as existing because what is causal is fundamentally empty, nonetheless there is this insight that things manifest via dependent origination.

So while you don't infer what causes this and that, nonetheless, you realize that it is the nature of everything that they manifest via dependent origination as if the entire universe of causes and conditions are coming together to manfiest this moment, and that they are fundamentally empty.

The practical thing to go about is this, imo. First realize anatta, then

continue dropping any trace of sense of self/Self until everything becomes experienced as a process of activities, then the seamlessly interconnected nature of everything will reveal itself. You will see for example, that when talking to another person, there is no you talking to him, rather it is just an interdependent stream of activities. It is directly felt and seen experientially that instead of a 'you' talking to a 'him', it is that in dependence on such and such conditions, such and such activities arise, on and on.

My typing on this forum is not a 'me' typing on the forum, but my eyes, the words on the screen, my brain, the computer, the room, all coming together to manifest this activity of typing, all a seamlessly interconnected/interdependent process of activities manifesting as one complete, whole, non-dual manifestation-activity.

You are not answering my questions but stating your convictions again. For the millionth time, I am inquiring into the question of HOW. Do you understand this word? I am going to write it a few times so you really understand it.

HOW? HOW? HOW?

And I don't care what Zen thinks or what Mahamudra thinks or whoever thins this or that. Repeating these two points is becoming very tiresome. So I'm going to write this point repeatedly again for you.

I DON'T CARE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE THINKS. I CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK AND HOW YOU"VE COME TO THAT REALIZATION.

Ok?

ok

The 'How' is explained in my article Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition, it is also explained in Thusness's article. But if you felt there is anything you want to clarify I can do so.

Anyways, you talked about these units of phenomena to explain dependent origination. So you need to define what this unit of phenomenon A is before we have the next phenomenon B. You mentioned "sitting" and "eating an apple.' Are they different phenomena? What about when you sit and eat an apple? Then are A and B happening simultaneously?

Relatively, they are different phenomena, there are just diverse multiplicity of phenomena, there are only composites. It is like B and C is manifesting in and as Just A yet distinct from A. As an analogy Thusness gave, it is like the black hole - a black hole has like the weight of a galaxy or universe in one very small point, this is like Maha. Everything coming together manifesting as one manifestation, one manifestation 'containing' the entire universe, like the net of indra. Thich Nhat Hanh emphasizes a lot about Maha, he keeps saying if you reflect on a piece of paper, you find the sun, the wood, the trees, the rain, the .... on and on. Of course this is not just an intellectual exercise which will be pointless... rather he is pointing out that the net of indra principle and the Maha experience.

But same and different are also notions that are based on relative truth, ultimately since everything is empty there is no 'same' or 'different'. What you can say is dis-joint, in other words there is no continuity of an entity, but you do not say there is ultimately two entities that are different.

Units of phenomena are relative, and when everything dependently originates, they are thereby empty of inherent existence and illusory.

So talking about A and B is also just a relative means of pointing out something (for example the disjoint aspect), fundamentally there is also no A and B, but this requires not only insight into anatta but the secondfold emptiness.

You also missed the reason I asked you "where does the interaction of B and C happen." I asked you that question because you said phenomena A comes from the interaction of B and C, and you said that you knew this from direct experiencing. So how do you directly experience the cause and the effect simultaneously whilst in moment A to know the difference?

It does not happen in a 'where' as 'where' don't apply for activities. But activities are mutually interconnected and interdependent. My activity of typing on this forum has a resulting activity on your side of typing to me, but actually there is no 'me' or 'you' that are typing, it is just one process of interdependently arisen activities, all the causes and conditions manifesting itself as such activities. We are halfway across the world, but still dependent origination occur. There is a Zen koan about drinking gin, you get drunk. Dependent origination is not limited by notions of time and space.

Whilst hearing the sound of the bell, how do you also know the causalities including "the person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, etc." Also since you have to move onto a new phenomenon C, and A needs to interact with another phenomenon to produce it, whilst experiencing "just A," the sound, how will you experience it interacting with a phenomenon B to produce C?

Because it is not an inference but a direct seeing of everything as not subject-object interaction, but a non-dual, dependently originated process of activities. That means you don't need to see all the causes and conditions which would have traced back to the beginning of the universe and the past universes without beginning... Rather, it is just the seeing in this moment that what manifest is agentless and causally manifested, and as if everything is coming together for this one complete moment. It is like the impersonality experience of 'life is being lived', but it is not life is being lived by a higher power, rather it is the total exertion of everything in terms of causes and conditions into this activity, and in this activity there is 'JUST This'. So Maha is an integration of impersonality, non-dual, anatta, and dependent origination.

Ok, again, these are just blatant statements. For the first sentence, I didn't say thought = the brain. But it could as well be that the brain's activity is what we tend to experience as thoughts, just as nerve cells are what we experience as certain feelings. If you don't hold materialistic views, you need to explain why you don't. This is a question addressed in the other thread also. Why do you not hold materialistic views?

No, nerve cells are matter, thought is mind.

But then we may come to the question of: is mind a product of matter? IMO that requires knowledge of rebirth. Otherwise it should be taken by faith.

In terms of inference, it could be reasoned, "Rice seeds produce rice sprout and not wheat. Wheat seeds produce wheat sprouts and not rice.

It is foolish to suppose, based in observation, that causal homogeneity is unreasonable."

....

"The first moment of mind in this life therefore must be dependent on a previous moment of mind from the last life." - Namdrol

As for the second sentence, why doesn't it hold to your experiential investigation that thoughts do or do not abide in the head. These are just meaningless definitive statements you are tossing around. Please explain instead of just spouting paragraphs of "empty because d.o. because empty, just luminous" bullcrap so we can have an actual discussion. Why does dependent origination, basically the principle of causation, negate location? Location is merely a relative term for where something is. Why does dependent origination deny it?

In short, what dependently originates is empty of core, what is empty of core means empty of location since location applies in reference to an existent. Edited January 8, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 8, 2012

Good for you, you exceptional yogi.

Thank you for complimenting The Exceptional Sky-flying Mahayogi Archaya Xabir

Edited January 8, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 8, 2012

Mhmm, and that makes it not some "spontaneous arising" either, since you have an idea (conventions) and an another idea about that idea (that it isn't real).

No, the seeing that it is not real is enough to drop that convention. Because it is useless and not real, and why do you need to keep bringing up a falsity? You won't bring up something you don't conceive as real. For example after I realized santa claus is false or rabbits with horns is false, I do not keep projecting it anymore. Even if I talk about them, I no longer 'conceive' them as real.

Even if you conceive something is real, you don't necessarily keep bringing it up. You don't keep conceiving 'United States, United States' even though conventionally you live in United States.

All the more when you realize they are empty and illusory... you will then stop conceiving it totally, but still be able to use the word when communicating.

If you do not conceive of the conventions that it is a car, how will you know that it is a car or that it is something you can "drive"?

It is a non-conceptual, spontaneous wisdom that is not dependent on establishing 'it is a car'.

You are not looking enough into the mind but just blinded by mere experience. Of course you conceive of a car, it just does not cross your mind in the form of language, "this is a car," but through habitual reaction. If you take an alien being and put him in front of a car, he won't recognize what it is. He will have a totally different habitual contextualization to the experience of seeing the car. He won't know any of what you wrote above, its purpose to drive, what it is composed of.

Yes, so knowledge and past experience is necessary. But using knowledge does not require the establishment of true existent. My typing on the keyboard right now does not require me to conceive of an inherently existing keyboard and the inherently existing location of the letters L, E, T, T, E, R, yet the action is spontaneously manifesting. The notion of location only comes up when you reflect on it and then conceive or establish there to be something called 'the L button' and its 'location'. The notion of location is actually an afterthought of the action, and is not required for the action. Likewise the establishment of self, agent, existence, location, conventions, etc are not required for an action.

If there were just shapes colors and movement, how could you reflect later that it was a tree you saw?

Via knowledge of conventions.

Second, when I am hearing music, my mind is at once interacting with the music according to many variables that have conditioned that experience of listening beforehand. For example, someone who had been listening his lifetime classical music, if you give him some Ramones (punk) music, he would think it's garbage. Yet if a punk fan listens to it, it's sheer brilliance. So no one "just listens to music."

True. But it is also possible to 'just listens to music' without conditioning. Anyway NDNCDIMOP does not mean one is freed from all conditioning, however it is nonetheless a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Thus AF people also say such a mode is free from affects/emotions, however I think they are making too much of a claim if they say they are permanently freed from all emotions as obviously they still have habits and conditioning. It is like taking a state of calmness to mean one is permanently freed from afflictions, naive of latent tendencies. But I digress.

Hahahahaha! Did you read the last sentence there? "My realization is based on realizing." Great explanation there. Realization is based on realization!

Yeah, it is based on realization, not mere experience Edited January 8, 2012 by xabir2005

Gerard · January 9, 2012

I do not have a belief in self.

I find that even after going through the technical four paths, Daniel's insights on anatta still does not cover as much as I did.

Also, my path does not go through the nanas as it is a different path, just as the path of Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, or even non-Buddhist paths like Advaita, AF and so on does not go through 16 nanas.

I call my path a direct path.

p.s. of course, I do not consider Daniel's four paths as the same as Buddha's fetter model four paths. I find Daniel's so called Arhatship is in fact closer to Buddha's stream entry.

You should also consider the fact that I was considered by moderators in Dharma Overground (Daniel's forum) to have attained Arhatship even though I do not consider myself an Arhat in the traditional sense.

Also, having achieved Kenneth Folk's 7th stage of enlightenment under his 7 stages of enlightenment model which extends even beyond the technical four paths, he told me that I was an 'exceptional yogi' to have seen through the illusion of self at the age of 20.

Just because you are not attached to something doesn't mean you have to burn it - it is question of whether it is sensible to do so. Many people have benefitted from my e-book, so I shall not do it.

This sounds to me as if you are engaged in a battle of supremacy; hence you have an ego, and a big one.

You need to cut through maya, then you won't even need the Internet, let alone write a book.

I could write a book myself if I wanted to, but there are enough books out there, so what for? Make money? Hmmm, I don't think that's good karma. To resurrect my ego, no thanks.

Teaching other starts by giving them helpful advice, here on the battlefront, on a daily basis, or healing the sick (Jesus was a healing master), work with children, nursing, etc. Not on top of a throne proclaiming arahantship at the age of 20.

What siddhis are you capable of? That would indicate something, but let others decide that. It's too easy to say I am capable of transforming water into wine, or turning yourself into light without serious witnesses.

Others must be able to see that and you remain unaffected by it. This is a good indication that you have reached the final goal.

I wish you the best of luck, but you still have a long way to go.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Gerard

xabir2005 · January 9, 2012

This sounds to me as if you are engaged in a battle of supremacy; hence you have an ego, and a big one.

You need to cut through maya, then you won't even need the Internet, let alone write a book.

I could write a book myself if I wanted to, but there are enough books out there, so what for? Make money? Hmmm, I don't think that's good karma. To resurrect my ego, no thanks.

Teaching other starts by giving them helpful advice, here on the battlefront, on a daily basis, or healing the sick (Jesus was a healing master), work with children, nursing, etc. Not on top of a throne proclaiming arahantship at the age of 20.

What siddhis are you capable of? That would indicate something, but let others decide that. It's too easy to say I am capable of transforming water into wine, or turning yourself into light without serious witnesses.

Others must be able to see that and you remain unaffected by it. This is a good indication that you have reached the final goal.

I wish you the best of luck, but you still have a long way to go.

so writing books = ego? Daniel ingram didn't write books? Dalai lama didn't write books? Go re read the chapter where Daniel rants about how a good dharma teacher should not have taboos about proclaiming one's attainment but openly discuss what he has realized and is capable of teaching, as if writing a resume like any other so that people will know what he can learn from the teacher. Plus the relentless attack on "mushroom culture" and the taboos surrounding the discussion of attainments.

My ebook is available for free and I intend to keep it that way, but will be published for those who wish to keep a hard copy - I doubt I will cover my cost.

I hope you didn't take my comment to lucky about sky flying mahayogi seriously. Its a joke and I was just goofing around. I was laughing when he made the sarcastic comment to me.

I find that there are not many books about one's spiritual journey with depth of insight, and my ebook has helped many and I have received many comments of how it helped them, including advanced practitioners that includes an awakened Soto Zen priest.

Daniel's book is good but belongs to gradual path while mine is direct path. There are other direct path books, but none that goes through the same exact path as me. My book is therefore a unique book. Not everyone will resonate with my book or the path I walk, but some will and do.

Your narrow mindedness has prevented you from learning from people. It is recorded in the suttas that there were people who attained arhatship at the age of 7 and were praised by Buddha for being competent dharma teachers even at that age. If you bother to ask around, you can ask what Kenneth and Daniel thinks about me and Thusness.

Edited January 9, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 9, 2012

The dilemma about proclaiming attainments is that it is at once empowering for some, but it may make you sound like a lunatic to others. This is not just a dilemma I face - even the Buddha has such encounters.

If you think proclaiming one's attainment is not something an awakened person is capable of, I suggest you read this carefully:

http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt13.htm

On the way not far from Gayâ the Buddha was met by Upaka, an ascetic who, struck by the serene appearance of the Master, inquired: "Who is your teacher? Whose teaching do you profess?"

The Buddha replied: "I have no teacher, one like me does not exist in all the world, for I am the Peerless Teacher, the Arahat. I alone am Supremely Enlightened. Quenching all defilements, Nibbâna’s calm have I attained. I go to the city of Kâsi (Benares) to set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In a world where blindness reigns, I shall beat the Deathless Drum."

"Friend, you then claim you are a universal victor," said Upaka. The Buddha replied: "Those who have attained the cessation of defilements, they are, indeed, victors like me. All evil have I vanquished. Hence I am a victor."

Upaka shook his head, remarking sarcastically, "It may be so, friend," and took a bypath.

Edited January 9, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 10, 2012

Reifying objects and reifying action is still fundamentally the same - you still establish something existing. I do not establish anything.

No, not establishing something would be, "I don't know." The agnostic position. You establish a position and defend it against another as truth vs. ignorance. So you have been arguing for that vision.

You can observe the entire process of activities as coming forth via conditions, when the entire sense of self/Self is seen through, deconstructed, and utterly dropped, then the entire experience is clearly seen as a causal process.

You "see" the causal process or are you part of the causal process? If former, it is no longer suchness of only the seen. If latter the causal process cannot be seen in its entirety for you are only a part of that chain. The part cannot see the whole when the whole is a progression, that is like your finger grasping the whole hand.

It is not an inferrential thing, nonetheless it is experienced that every manifestation is a causal activity. Of course, you don't even establish causality as existing because what is causal is fundamentally empty, nonetheless there is this insight that things manifest via dependent origination.

So while you don't infer what causes this and that, nonetheless, you realize that it is the nature of everything that they manifest via dependent origination as if the entire universe of causes and conditions are coming together to manfiest this moment, and that they are fundamentally empty.

You are again merely speaking about linguistic conceptualization but not habitual conceptualization, in your words, latent tendencies.

In the first paragraph there, why, "nonetheless"? That is a cop out word. How can a manifestation be experienced as a causal activity without inferring where it came from, where it leads, i.e. context. Context is inferred, it is not direct. Moreover, why are you not establishing causality as existing? Now causality is empty? What is causality dependent on for you to say it is empty? Causality is a principle, not an object. How is it empty?

In the second paragraph, you are speaking again with a word ("nonetheless") that show you have no insight into your own progress on the path. How is it that without conceptual inferring you can instinctively see and know the causalities of experience without effort? That says something about your very nature and what it means to know doesn't it? If you don't understand this question, the second paragraph is a lie or a parroting or worse, an indoctrinated idea.

The practical thing to go about is this, imo. First realize anatta, then

continue dropping any trace of sense of self/Self until everything becomes experienced as a process of activities, then the seamlessly interconnected nature of everything will reveal itself. You will see for example, that when talking to another person, there is no you talking to him, rather it is just an interdependent stream of activities. It is directly felt and seen experientially that instead of a 'you' talking to a 'him', it is that in dependence on such and such conditions, such and such activities arise, on and on.

These are directions, not investigations.

My typing on this forum is not a 'me' typing on the forum, but my eyes, the words on the screen, my brain, the computer, the room, all coming together to manifest this activity of typing, all a seamlessly interconnected/interdependent process of activities manifesting as one complete, whole, non-dual manifestation-activity.

Then you are a physicalist? If not, explain why you are not a materialist. I ask this question because here you seem to believe that the moment of manifestation depends on non-conscious causes and conscious causes based on material causes, like the brain, the computer, the screen, etc.

Relatively, they are different phenomena, there are just diverse multiplicity of phenomena, there are only composites. It is like B and C is manifesting in and as Just A yet distinct from A. As an analogy Thusness gave, it is like the black hole - a black hole has like the weight of a galaxy or universe in one very small point, this is like Maha. Everything coming together manifesting as one manifestation, one manifestation 'containing' the entire universe, like the net of indra. Thich Nhat Hanh emphasizes a lot about Maha, he keeps saying if you reflect on a piece of paper, you find the sun, the wood, the trees, the rain, the .... on and on. Of course this is not just an intellectual exercise which will be pointless... rather he is pointing out that the net of indra principle and the Maha experience.

This paragraph is such a mess I'm going to break it down sentence by sentence. "Relatively"? Relative to what? What is a unit of phenomena relative to when you are claiming that certain phenomena unit A interacts with another certain phenomena unit B to produce another phenomena C? "There are only composites"? How can there be only composites without units? If a composite has no units, then that itself is the minimal unit, you have a new elemental unit now. There cannot be "just composites." On to the third sentence: "B and C manifesting in and as JustA et distinct from A" makes no sense. If B and C manifest nondually in and as Just A, it is undistinguishable from Just A. If they are the causes and appear simultaneously with A, then they are also the effect, in which case one can no longer say B and C are causes that produce A.

The Maha examples of the black hole makes no sense. Does the black hole reveal the whole universe? No. It just weighs one universe. This is like saying a 25 pound gorilla reveals a 25 pound piece of rock. I was there in person when thich nhat hanh explained seeing the universe in a tea cup. Someone asked him if he directly seeing all the causes and he said no. He said he sees the principle of it, which is very different and is not a direct experience, but a framed experience. The tea cup is experienced in a different frame of interconnectedness. So again, not just suchness of the seen.

But same and different are also notions that are based on relative truth, ultimately since everything is empty there is no 'same' or 'different'. What you can say is dis-joint, in other words there is no continuity of an entity, but you do not say there is ultimately two entities that are different.

Mumble jumble. If you are going to discard us using the idea of similarities and differences we might as stop communicating, since knowing the difference is what makes communication or formulation of ideas possible at all. With the latter sentence, if two entities are not different, that means they are a continuation, linked. It precisely means they are not disjointed.

Units of phenomena are relative, and when everything dependently originates, they are thereby empty of inherent existence and illusory.

So talking about A and B is also just a relative means of pointing out something (for example the disjoint aspect), fundamentally there is also no A and B, but this requires not only insight into anatta but the secondfold emptiness.

First of all, you brought out the categorization of units as a support to explain dependent origination and the disjointedness of reality. If you are merely going to use dependent origination as a way to disprove that explanation, we have a situation where you are negating your own proof with the very conclusion that proof is supposed to support. Make sense? Simply you are just shoving everything into a hokey pokey "dependent origination" box.

Secondly, if you are pointing out to the disjoint aspect, then you are not utilizing A and B relatively as pointers but establishing A and B as evidence for how you've come to the conclusion that reality is in fact disjointed.

It does not happen in a 'where' as 'where' don't apply for activities. But activities are mutually interconnected and interdependent. My activity of typing on this forum has a resulting activity on your side of typing to me, but actually there is no 'me' or 'you' that are typing, it is just one process of interdependently arisen activities, all the causes and conditions manifesting itself as such activities. We are halfway across the world, but still dependent origination occur. There is a Zen koan about drinking gin, you get drunk. Dependent origination is not limited by notions of time and space.

Because it is not an inference but a direct seeing of everything as not subject-object interaction, but a non-dual, dependently originated process of activities. That means you don't need to see all the causes and conditions which would have traced back to the beginning of the universe and the past universes without beginning... Rather, it is just the seeing in this moment that what manifest is agentless and causally manifested, and as if everything is coming together for this one complete moment. It is like the impersonality experience of 'life is being lived', but it is not life is being lived by a higher power, rather it is the total exertion of everything in terms of causes and conditions into this activity, and in this activity there is 'JUST This'. So Maha is an integration of impersonality, non-dual, anatta, and dependent origination.

You seem to have missed my question. "Seeing in this moment that what manifest is agentless and causally manifested, as if everything is coming together for this one complete moment." Now my question was,

So how do you directly experience the cause and the effect simultaneously whilst in moment A of manifestion to know the difference? Whilst hearing the sound of the bell, how do you also know [that its] causalities include "the person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, etc."?

If the seeing is spontaneous, nondual, direct and disjoint, how do you directly realize that there was a previous moment of a series of causations that bring this very moment to its manifestation? Or are you merely talking about a "sense" experience or a way of framing an experience so that it is seen as impersonal and founded by myriad of causes and conditions? A moment itself does not reveal its causes and conditions as we have explained through the alien encountering a car example. The car does not simply say to the alien, "I've been cause by such and such conditions and is called a car."

No, nerve cells are matter, thought is mind.

But then we may come to the question of: is mind a product of matter? IMO that requires knowledge of rebirth. Otherwise it should be taken by faith.

In terms of inference, it could be reasoned, "Rice seeds produce rice sprout and not wheat. Wheat seeds produce wheat sprouts and not rice.

It is foolish to suppose, based in observation, that causal homogeneity is unreasonable."

....

"The first moment of mind in this life therefore must be dependent on a previous moment of mind from the last life." - Namdrol

In short, what dependently originates is empty of core, what is empty of core means empty of location since location applies in reference to an existent.

As for your first sentence, if you believe in the distinction between matter and thought, in the seen, there is then definitely not just the seen, but all sorts of material designs occurring. It is no non-dual at all, but separated in the seer (the brain and its consciousness, the seeing, the interpretation of information, and the seen, which is the material itself).

Also, so it seems you don't know what mind is a product of. So what is you basis for saying that mind is dependently originated on...what?

Namdrols example sucks. Humans give birth to humans like rice seed to rice..ok...and humans die just as rice plants die and go into the soil. Rice plants don't die and become rice seeds again. So how is this any adequate observation to proving mind from a previous life?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 10, 2012

No, the seeing that it is not real is enough to drop that convention. Because it is useless and not real, and why do you need to keep bringing up a falsity? You won't bring up something you don't conceive as real. For example after I realized santa claus is false or rabbits with horns is false, I do not keep projecting it anymore. Even if I talk about them, I no longer 'conceive' them as real.

Even if you conceive something is real, you don't necessarily keep bringing it up. You don't keep conceiving 'United States, United States' even though conventionally you live in United States.

All the more when you realize they are empty and illusory... you will then stop conceiving it totally, but still be able to use the word when communicating.

Then you don't understand habit and how frameworks are formulated. You do in fact conceive that you live in the United States when awake. It is a conditional belief and a framework that shapes your daily activities, just as your non-belief in santa claus or rabbits with horns does, albeit very minimally (for instance, if you encountered a santa at a mall, you will think he is fake).

Also, if you do not conceive something at all, you will not be able to use the idea while communicating, since you wouldn't know it. Hence, the usage of "but" there is unjustified.

It is a non-conceptual, spontaneous wisdom that is not dependent on establishing 'it is a car'.

So someone who was alive before the car was invented must not have this spontaneous wisdom, eh?

Yes, so knowledge and past experience is necessary. But using knowledge does not require the establishment of true existent. My typing on the keyboard right now does not require me to conceive of an inherently existing keyboard and the inherently existing location of the letters L, E, T, T, E, R, yet the action is spontaneously manifesting. The notion of location only comes up when you reflect on it and then conceive or establish there to be something called 'the L button' and its 'location'. The notion of location is actually an afterthought of the action, and is not required for the action. Likewise the establishment of self, agent, existence, location, conventions, etc are not required for an action.

Via knowledge of conventions.

You are relying too heavily on your ability to experience spontaneously without reflecting on that experience. You've transitioned the way you experience reality but also discarded a valuable asset from the previous way of conception, which was mainly dual and analytic in nature. You have moved into the heart but have forgotten the mind, and currently, as evident from this discussion, lost as to how to integrate the two.

It may appear to you that you are not conceiving the keyboard, the letters, its location relative to the body, but infact these are all conditioned and learned responses from your previous interactions with the keyboard. For instance if a totally new tool appeared to you, or you had a new sense of spatial existence, you must again reflect on the tool's usage and sense of location to choose in what manner you will act. And this will nonetheless be affected by your previous experiences as well. As for your obsession with discarding the "truly existent," as I have suggested before, that is only a matter of degrees of how much reality you give to an experience. If you indeed did not believe in any existing keyboard and letters, there would be no action possible, since you would, well, not know that it is in front of you. If you said, "it only conventionally exists," then the relationship between you and the keyboard would alter to a degree just as it also would if you said "it truly exists." But in both cases, the existence of the keyboard and its location is established, no matter how thinly it is done. Why? Because you used it, you assumed it existed.

True. But it is also possible to 'just listens to music' without conditioning. Anyway NDNCDIMOP does not mean one is freed from all conditioning, however it is nonetheless a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Thus AF people also say such a mode is free from affects/emotions, however I think they are making too much of a claim if they say they are permanently freed from all emotions as obviously they still have habits and conditioning. It is like taking a state of calmness to mean one is permanently freed from afflictions, naive of latent tendencies. But I digress.

Yeah, it is based on realization, not mere experience

Really? How do you just listen to music without conditioning?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 10, 2012

so writing books = ego? Daniel ingram didn't write books? Dalai lama didn't write books? Go re read the chapter where Daniel rants about how a good dharma teacher should not have taboos about proclaiming one's attainment but openly discuss what he has realized and is capable of teaching, as if writing a resume like any other so that people will know what he can learn from the teacher. Plus the relentless attack on "mushroom culture" and the taboos surrounding the discussion of attainments.

My ebook is available for free and I intend to keep it that way, but will be published for those who wish to keep a hard copy - I doubt I will cover my cost.

I hope you didn't take my comment to lucky about sky flying mahayogi seriously. Its a joke and I was just goofing around. I was laughing when he made the sarcastic comment to me.

I find that there are not many books about one's spiritual journey with depth of insight, and my ebook has helped many and I have received many comments of how it helped them, including advanced practitioners that includes an awakened Soto Zen priest.

Daniel's book is good but belongs to gradual path while mine is direct path. There are other direct path books, but none that goes through the same exact path as me. My book is therefore a unique book. Not everyone will resonate with my book or the path I walk, but some will and do.

Your narrow mindedness has prevented you from learning from people. It is recorded in the suttas that there were people who attained arhatship at the age of 7 and were praised by Buddha for being competent dharma teachers even at that age. If you bother to ask around, you can ask what Kenneth and Daniel thinks about me and Thusness.

Daniel was high on his own horse writing that book (just like you are now), claiming he was an arhant blah blah, that cycle mode was best and everyone who claims otherwise is just fooling themselves and dismissing other sects as inadequate unnecessary yada yada until he ran into AF people and started having PCE's to realize cycle mode was subpar.

Your book is bunch of nonsense and those people who think it's wisdom are probably just bunch of other Buddhists who orgasm at words like anatta and dependent origination. Anyone with some sense and less fetish with Buddhist doctrine can see through it.

Oh god, this whole post just reeks, it's pathetic!

Come on Xabir! What type of stupid response is this! Why do you need some comparison to Daniel or Kenneth or some praise by this guy or that? You need some soto zen master letter of recommendation for your own enlightenment? You sound like some 12 year old on a playground battling for supremacy like Gerard said! Your book as a benefit? That's why you aren't going to destroy it! Hahahahahahah!!!! That's such bullshit. Benefit? It's gonna mess up a lot of practitioners and set them very very behind with its pseudo wisdom.

You should do yourself a huge favor and go do some basic insight meditation. Seems like your direct path just drove you blind off a cliff.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites