Concepts relative to "God" in Buddhism

[xabir2005]

[Aaron]

Non-dualism is a word that can have vast number of meanings. It seems I don't follow the understanding advanced by most people here.

 

To me, non-duality have two valid meanings: no subject-object duality, and no 'existence' or 'non-existence' (being or non-being).

 

Non-dual of 'right and wrong, light and dark' etc presumably talking about state unaffected by judgemental concepts is not what I understand (or experience) as enlightenment.

 

I can agree with your description of non-duality that you gave above, I just believe that non-dualism is reliant upon dualism to exist. There's no need for anyone to agree with me, because it really changes nothing.

 

Aaron

[Harmonious Emptiness]

http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm

 

 

The phrase 'all form is non-form' is from the Diamond Sūtra.

 

Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Can we use our ordinary flesh-eyes to see the Tathāgata’s physical form and thus believe we are seeing the true Tathāgata ?"

 

 

Seriously? You post this as refutation, as if I think God or Dharmakaya can be seen and otherwise it is non-existent? Seriously, give people some credit man. Read that chapter, it merely refutes the idea that Dharmakaya can be seen. No one sees God (short of the odd illusion, which might be the Buddhakaya), they just know that He is in everything, and know that things follow His (of course I use the term His loosely) order.

 

 

edit: for your first response, I might not be able to get to it until after the New Year, but I know there are scriptural passages that talk about Consciousness as being like a ground, though maybe it changes, it is still always there, just as the Buddha Mind exists the same in all arising Buddhas

Edited December 30, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[xabir2005]

Seriously? You post this as refutation, as if I think God or Dharmakaya can be seen and otherwise it is non-existent? Seriously, give people some credit man. Read that chapter, it merely refutes the idea that Dharmakaya can be seen. No one sees God (short of the odd illusion, which might be the Buddhakaya), they just know that He is in everything, and know that things follow His (of course I use the term His loosely) order.

 

 

edit: for your first response, I might not be able to get to it until after the New Year, but I know there are scriptural passages that talk about Consciousness as being like a ground, though maybe it changes, it is still always there, just as the Buddha Mind exists the same in all arising Buddhas

The point is that dharmakaya is talking about emptiness. Emptiness not as in an Absolute void or ground of being, but emptiness as the lack of inherent existence. What dependently originates is empty, and this emptiness is all-pervasive. Of course it is not just dead emptiness but the inseparability to emptiness and luminosity. Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The point is that dharmakaya is talking about emptiness. Emptiness not as in an Absolute void or ground of being, but emptiness as the lack of inherent existence. What dependently originates is empty, and this emptiness is all-pervasive. Of course it is not just dead emptiness but the inseparability to emptiness and luminosity.

 

Which I think leaves plenty of room towards this overarching consciousness-emptiness flux which is "The Great Spirit".

[xabir2005]

Which I think leaves plenty of room towards this overarching consciousness-emptiness flux which is "The Great Spirit".

The problem does not lie in what name you give to reality. The problem is when you do not comprehend its emptiness and thus fall into the extremes of eternalism, postulating a real source of phenomena, or a real substance or Self [as in with the capital S] underlying phenomena, and of course if you simply talk about emptiness but not the uninterrupted stream of luminosity and appearance, you might fall into the extreme of nihilism. By the realization of the unity of luminosity and emptiness you are freed from extremes.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The problem does not lie in what name you give to reality. The problem is when you do not comprehend its emptiness and thus fall into the extremes of eternalism, postulating a real source of phenomena, or a real substance or Self [as in with the capital S] underlying phenomena, and of course if you simply talk about emptiness but not the uninterrupted stream of luminosity and appearance, you might fall into the extreme of nihilism. By the realization of the unity of luminosity and emptiness you are freed from extremes.

And your support for these claims?

 

"I just see it that way!"

 

How do you know it's true?

 

"It's just what I see!"

 

 

How did you arrive at this knowledge?

 

"Oh, so and so said it, so it must've been true. And I saw it that way too, because...you know, it's true." :blink:

 

Alllll your fancy little concepts, underlying them all, are just a lot of hokey pokey evidence, parroting doctrine and terms, no genuine contemplation at all.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

And your support for these claims?

 

"I just see it that way!"

 

How do you know it's true?

 

"It's just what I see!"

 

 

How did you arrive at this knowledge?

 

"Oh, so and so said it, so it must've been true. And I saw it that way too, because...you know, it's true." :blink:

 

Alllll your fancy little concepts, underlying them all, are just a lot of hokey pokey evidence, parroting doctrine and terms, no genuine contemplation at all.

I have already done my contemplation. It involves investigating the nature of the sensate world in a vipassana mode and discovering its nature in terms of the three characteristics and emptiness.

 

I do not rely on intellectual analysis. This is not the way of vipassana.

Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have already done my contemplation. It involves investigating the nature of the sensate world in a vipassana mode and discovering its nature in terms of the three characteristics and emptiness.

 

I do not rely on intellectual analysis. This is not the way of vipassana.

Ah, right.

 

Basically seeing for yourself that in seeing, no seer or seen. In hearing, no hearer or heard. Why? Because that's "the truth." How do you know that's indeed the correct way of seeing things? "well, it's written here/someone said it." Vipassana mode? More like "making myself see things in a,b,c" mode. Contemplation? About what? Did you ever ponder or think about why it's "in seeing, no seer or seen" thoroughly? Or did you just take someone's word, logic, and observations all via faith and then "discovered" (more like convinced yourself) them in your experience. Can't support your points in a debate? Post pages of quotes that are irrelevant or completely out of context. Even your own examples are borrowed examples you've been using for more than three years: Thich Nhat Hanh's wind, Thusness' red flower and usage of the term weather. The same examples repeated like a broken record because no genuine insight into the meanings of them.

 

Three characteristics? That's funny for someone who acknowledges he doesn't really know what suffering is. What true contemplation have you done on dukkha, or annica? Anatta, Anatta, Anatta....that's all you can mutter, well because it is indeed a thusness stage, and oh no, you have to go through them! And the best evidence for anatta you have is, "oh, just see it!" Emptiness? Everything's illusory? On what basis? Again: "Ohhhh just see that everything is an illusion!"

 

It feels good doesn't it, to believe that everything is just rolling along. Of course, life is a bit more fun when you aren't responsible and everything is just happening according to the stars (that's a metaphor now). Come on Xabir, do a little insight practice into your past 4-5 years of practice. And coming here telling everyone they are deluded, don't understand, can't see, and you are awakened and now enlightened. That you know "the truth" when you can't even see how much of a nonsense and fanatical your "wisdom" is. Your biggest flaw is you haven't looked into yourself.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Ah, right.

 

Basically seeing for yourself that in seeing, no seer or seen. In hearing, no hearer or heard. Why? Because that's "the truth." How do you know that's indeed the correct way of seeing things? "well, it's written here/someone said it." Vipassana mode? More like "making myself see things in a,b,c" mode. Contemplation? About what? Did you ever ponder or think about why it's "in seeing, no seer or seen" thoroughly? Or did you just take someone's word, logic, and observations all via faith and then "discovered" (more like convinced yourself) them in your experience. Can't support your points in a debate? Post pages of quotes that are irrelevant or completely out of context. Even your own examples are borrowed examples you've been using for more than three years:

I investigated and contemplated them in my experience until it is seen and realized.

 

Impermanence came to me after anatta insight, and it has to do with the 1st stanza disjoint aspect.

 

As I wrote in my article:

 

Few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that.

 

Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, groundless, ephemeral, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'. Somewhere this time, Thusness wrote me a post in blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html

Thich Nhat Hanh's wind, Thusness' red flower and usage of the term weather. The same examples repeated like a broken record because no genuine insight into the meanings of them.

Those are great analogies.

 

I actually came up with one new analogy on my own I haven't heard anywhere else (it spontaneously occured to me when I was looking at my reflection) with regards to Emptiness, that I wrote in Chinese.

 

Basically it goes like this: when we look at our reflections in the mirror, if we are not aware it is merely a reflection it seems like our image is located inside the mirror, as if it has substance. But if that were the case, why is it that when we walk left and right, the images changes according to our movement? So we know that the image is not inherent. That image is dependently originated and has no substance, merely an illusory image without core. Similarly when we investigate all appearances, they too are discovered to have no locatable core or essence anywhere, merely being a dependently originated and thus empty appearance, like the moon reflected in water, like the reflections of the mirror.

Three characteristics? That's funny for someone who acknowledges he doesn't really know what suffering is.

It just means everything is impermanent and ungraspable, what is impermanence and ungraspable leads to suffering when grasped. What is born will die, what arises will fade, so you cannot find happiness in what is impermanent.

 

It does not mean that everything is literally suffering (as in, afflictions), if that were the case there can be no liberation. So a distinction is made between suffering as a characteristic of phenomenon and suffering as in afflictions.

 

As the Buddha said: .'"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

 

p.s. here's a good article http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

"So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering. It's because of clinging that physical pain becomes mental pain. It's because of clinging that aging, illness, and death cause mental distress. The paradox here is that, in clinging to things, we don't trap them or get them under our control. Instead, we trap ourselves. When we realize our captivity, we naturally search for a way out. And this is where it's so important that the first noble truth not say that "Life is suffering." If life were suffering, where would we look for an end to suffering? We'd be left with nothing but death and annihilation. But when the actual truth is that clinging is suffering, we simply have to look for the clinging and eliminate its causes."

What true contemplation have you done on dukkha, or annica? Anatta, Anatta, Anatta....that's all you can mutter, well because it is indeed a thusness stage, and oh no, you have to go through them! And the best evidence for anatta you have is, "oh, just see it!" Emptiness? Everything's illusory? On what basis? Again: "Ohhhh just see that everything is an illusion!"

 

It feels good doesn't it, to believe that everything is just rolling along. Of course, life is a bit more fun when you aren't responsible and everything is just happening according to the stars (that's a metaphor now). Come on Xabir, do a little insight practice into your past 4-5 years of practice. And coming here telling everyone they are deluded, don't understand, can't see, and you are awakened and now enlightened. That you know "the truth" when you can't even see how much of a nonsense and fanatical your "wisdom" is. Your biggest flaw is you haven't looked into yourself.

You have too much assumptions and you don't know my realizations. Its best you focus on your own practice and investigation.

 

p.s. even the attainment of sotapanna implies the end of self-view, and the contemplation on three characteristics must lead to an understanding of anatta in order to end self-view. Since liberation lies in the end of the 'I am' conceit, anatta is kind of essential, but anatta is also linked with the other dharma seals. Also, some people focus on anicca first then anatta came later, for me it is anatta first then anicca become apparent, it all depends on what one practices.

Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I investigated and contemplated them in my experience until it is seen and realized.

 

Impermanence came to me after anatta insight, and it has to do with the 1st stanza disjoint aspect.

 

As I wrote in my article:

 

Few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that.

 

Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, groundless, ephemeral, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'. Somewhere this time, Thusness wrote me a post in blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html

Uh...and how is this different than what I wrote as a summary of your contemplation? Let's examine the first paragraph. At first you notice you have this tendency to want to return to a particular state...ok, then bam! "it's illusory, I must drop it!"..because...oh right, no reason given on how or why you recognized it to be illusory. No contemplation given into the nature of the urge or the here and now, and what that experience entails....just "it's an illusion, I saw it! (or because Thusness said so!) I must drop it!"

 

Then let's look at the second paragraph. Ohhh..."the insight just arose!" Out of no where! Wow, you must believe in a lot of weird things if you just believe whatever comes up in your mind like that. And the rest is basically, "everything's an illusion! I saw it!" and a load of convictions you apparently already knew were true even before realizing them. The language of course, taken right off of Thusness stages. Great journal of contemplative insight there.

 

Those are great analogies.

 

I actually came up with one new analogy on my own I haven't heard anywhere else (it spontaneously occured to me when I was looking at my reflection) with regards to Emptiness, that I wrote in Chinese.

 

Basically it goes like this: when we look at our reflections in the mirror, if we are not aware it is merely a reflection it seems like our image is located inside the mirror, as if it has substance. But if that were the case, why is it that when we walk left and right, the images changes according to our movement? So we know that the image is not inherent. That image is dependently originated and has no substance, merely an illusory image without core. Similarly when we investigate all appearances, they too are discovered to have no locatable core or essence anywhere, merely being a dependently originated and thus empty appearance, like the moon reflected in water, like the reflections of the mirror.

Hey, why is it if I walk left or right the toilet doesn't move but the mirror image does? OH MY GOD! The toilet must be some independent entity while the image is an illusion! Lovely contemplation there.

 

It just means everything is impermanent and ungraspable, what is impermanence and ungraspable leads to suffering when grasped. What is born will die, what arises will fade, so you cannot find happiness in what is impermanent.

Actually, I tend to find happiness in a lot of impermanent things. Like good food, drinking tea, rain, relationships, etc. So you are wrong here.

 

p.s. even the attainment of sotapanna implies the end of self-view, and the contemplation on three characteristics must lead to an understanding of anatta in order to end self-view. Since liberation lies in the end of the 'I am' conceit, anatta is kind of essential, but anatta is also linked with the other dharma seals. Also, some people focus on anicca first then anatta came later, for me it is anatta first then anicca become apparent, it all depends on what one practices.

Xabir I don't care about any of that. I just care about you sounding like a total buffoon behind all that.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Uh...and how is this different than what I wrote as a summary of your contemplation? Let's examine the first paragraph. At first you notice you have this tendency to want to return to a particular state...ok, then bam! "it's illusory, I must drop it!"..because...oh right, no reason given on how or why you recognized it to be illusory. No contemplation given into the nature of the urge or the here and now, and what that experience entails....just "it's an illusion, I saw it! (or because Thusness said so!) I must drop it!"

I saw that it is an illusion because if reality is already perfect and complete in this moment (which I saw to be the case), why do I need effort to get to something? So I dropped the effort. But this is ironically still effortful. It is not a natural resolution. I did not see that it is the view of inherency, the attachment to a Here/Now, to an actual ground, that is the problem.

Then let's look at the second paragraph. Ohhh..."the insight just arose!" Out of no where! Wow, you must believe in a lot of weird things if you just believe whatever comes up in your mind like that. And the rest is basically, "everything's an illusion! I saw it!" and a load of convictions you apparently already knew were true even before realizing them. The language of course, taken right off of Thusness stages. Great journal of contemplative insight there.

The insight arose during contemplation in a vipasasnic setting, it is just realized that everything is disjoint, unsupported, ephemeral, insubstantial, etc

Hey, why is it if I walk left or right the toilet doesn't move but the mirror image does? OH MY GOD! The toilet must be some independent entity while the image is an illusion! Lovely contemplation there.

The point is everything dependently originates, and the toilet 'moves' or changes accordingly too. There is no 'the toilet' apart from all the conditions at the moment giving rise to the appearance you call 'toilet'.

Actually, I tend to find happiness in a lot of impermanent things. Like good food, drinking tea, rain, relationships, etc. So you are wrong here.

Yes but to grasp it leads to suffering, ultimately. Actually suffering should also be understood in the context of countless lifetimes in samsara.

 

I once went to a bookstore and flipped through a very interesting book on how to quit nicotine. The author used to smoke 40 sticks a day, he's a chain smoker, but managed to quit it entirely through correct understanding of the nature of nicotine and nicotine craving.

 

He says there is nothing great about nicotine at all except that it relieves craving temporarily (in the same way eating food relieves hunger temporarily) giving a false illusion about the greatness of nicotine, but if you don't have that craving or need to begin with, why will you need nicotine? So nicotine is not in itself something great, but it gives temporary relieve to the craving so it is misperceived as something good. It is actually just to satisfy the pathetic nicotine addiction... nothing else. So in order to quit successfully all we have to do is to change our false perception about nicotine. I only read a bit but it is quite an interesting book. Later on, I discovered a sutta that gave a rather similar analogy.

 

Also not just for smoking cravings but basically every situation: for relationships and sexual desires, if you are straight, you aren't attracted to same sex people and you won't find pleasure in same sex relationship (well you do but in a non-sexual friendship manner which is a different story), so basically the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so isn't it the same as the smoking case? I can say the same with food, etc, since one type of food can seem very nice to someone but not nice to someone else (e.g. durian), so the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so the pleasure is derived simply from your craving, and craving arise due to grasping on things falsely (there are also other conditions and factors but those are not primary ones).

 

So it is the disease of craving, clinging that results in suffering. That perceived pleasure itself is a result of the disease of taking suffering to be pleasure, like taking boiling water as pleasurable, or scratching a sore wound as pleasurable. If there is no craving to begin with, there will be peace.

 

This is like feeling a bad diarrhea and stomachache then going to toilet to shit feels great but actually there is nothing great about shitting and if given a choice you prefer not to have diarrhea. Same goes for the leper and the hot boiling water example: pouring boiling water when you're a leper feels great but of course you prefer not to be a leper.

 

Craving, attachment, brings much suffering and harm and yet we constantly indulge in them in delusion so we can never find the peace and happiness of nirvana. Now that we know the possibility of nirvana, we should strive and make an effort.

 

Something I wrote to a friend some time ago:

 

Imo the key is in paying clear attention (mindfulness) and meditative investigation on the defilements until their nature becomes clear: impermanent, unsatisfactory and nonself is the way to insight and as a result natural dropping occurs. It cannot be willed but it can occur as a natural dropping through seeing with naked awareness, but not by reacting to it, nor is it by temporarily suppressing the arising of thoughts (both which are dualistic action presuming that there is a doer that can control the objects of arising, and therefore cannot lead to a true resolution of defilements).

 

However when insight arise into the nature of defilements, we naturally stop being drawn in by the allurement of the defilements. We clearly see defilements as suffering/unsatisfactory, as as being empty. Sentient beings are entranced by craving for temporary pleasures, not knowing that the very craving and clinging leads to suffering: in the same way that scratching a sore wound may feel very "right" or pleasurable but is actually making things much worse and increasing the suffering every time you scratch. It is the blindness of sentient beings to the nature of that craving that sustains the samsaric cycle of suffering.

 

So liberation from defilements can only happen when we realize the nature of defilements and craving we harbour are like hot charcoal that burns, naturally we drop - it is not by reasoning or willing ourselves to drop. This deep seeing thus naturally leads to disenchantment, dispassion and liberation.

 

This is why arahants can no longer give rise to craving: not because he has strong will, but because his combination of wisdom and samadhi is so complete that he can no longer be delusioned about the nature of craving and suffering. It is like you can no longer pick up an object once you recognise it to be hot charcoal.

 

Practicing this way also leads to an experiential understanding of the four noble truths: suffering, cause of suffering (craving), end of suffering, way to end suffering.

 

Here is something I find useful and effective regarding dealing with addictions:

 

"In addition to various recovery programs, the most effective way of undoing addiction that I know of is by giving non-judgmental, open attention to what is happening right now in this moment without seeking a result or trying to change it in any way – simply seeing it clearly. Let's take alcoholic drinking as an example. If you're not yet ready or able to completely stop drinking, then pay attention to the whole process of drinking as it happens. Notice that first impulse for a drink – see what triggers it, be aware of how it happens, notice what it feels like in the body. What is this urge itself actually like? What thoughts are showing up, what mental images, what storylines, what sensations? Is it possible to pause for a moment and fully experience the bodily sensations that go with this urge for a drink, the sense of urgency, the excitement, whatever it is? And then the whole process of "deciding" whether to give in to this urge or whether to resist – how does that so-called decision-making process actually unfold, what are your thoughts telling you? And then buying the bottle, opening it up, pouring the first drink – what does each moment in this process feel like in the body? And then the first sip, what is that like? And how do you feel after one drink – what is pleasurable about it, what isn't? What moves you to have a second drink? What is this urge – do you really want another drink, or is there a fear of what you might feel if you don't keep drinking? How do you feel after that second drink – do you actually like how you feel? What do you like about it and what don't you like? What do you feel like the next morning? What thoughts and stories are arising? Simply paying attention to this whole unfolding process and observing it every step of the way. You'll learn a lot. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to these questions, and the answers may be different at different moments. It's all about paying attention, being aware of your thoughts, noticing the storylines, feeling the sensations in the body, discovering what is actually going on every step of the way. When you realize that you are pinching yourself, and when you see how it happens – what the allurement is, how it seduces you, how you do it, how ultimately unsatisfying it is, how it hurts – naturally, you stop.

 

The more the light of awareness shines on these habitual mechanisms, and the more clarity there is about how they work, the more choice and the more possibility there is. The urge for a drink may still arise, but it may be possible not to go with it. And when it isn't possible, then you drink. And you notice what that's like. Maybe over time drinking happens less and less, and maybe alcoholic drinking falls away completely at some point. Maybe at some point a clear decision to stop emerges, or a decision to go into some recovery program, or whatever it might be. It is not actually "your" decision, it is the action of Life Itself."

 

- Joan Tollifson, http://www.joantollifson.com/writing9.html

 

 

Also here is what the Buddha says about the leper who takes pleasure in being scorched:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html

"Magandiya, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, and thanks to the medicine he would be cured of his leprosy: well & happy, free, master of himself, going wherever he liked. Then suppose two strong men, having grabbed him with their arms, were to drag him to a pit of glowing embers. What do you think? Wouldn't he twist his body this way & that?"

 

"Yes, master Gotama. Why is that? The fire is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching."

 

"Now what do you think, Magandiya? Is the fire painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, only now, or was it also that way before?"

 

"Both now & before is it painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It's just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was actually painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'"

 

"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'

 

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of sensuality.

 

"Now what do you think, Magandiya? Have you ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace?"

 

"No, master Gotama."

 

"Very good, Magandiya. Neither have I ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace. But whatever priests or contemplatives who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized — as it actually is present — the origination & disappearance, the allure, the danger, & the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever."

 

Then at that moment the Blessed One exclaimed,

Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease. The eightfold: the foremost of paths going to the Deathless, Secure.

 

When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer said to the Blessed One, "It's amazing, master Gotama. It's astounding, how this, too, is well-stated by master Gotama: 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease.' We have also heard this said by earlier wanderers in the lineage of our teachers: 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease.' This agrees with that."

 

"But as for what you have heard said by earlier wanderers in the lineage of your teachers, Magandiya — 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease' — which freedom from disease is that, which Unbinding?"

 

When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer rubbed his own limbs with his hand. "This is that freedom from disease, master Gotama," he said. "This is that Unbinding. For I am now free from disease, happy, and nothing afflicts me."

 

"Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... or pink objects; who couldn't see even or uneven places, the stars, the sun, or the moon. He would hear a man with good eyesight saying, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' He would go in search of something white. Then another man would fool him with a grimy, oil-stained rag: 'Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' The blind man would take it and put it on. Having put it on, gratified, he would exclaim words of gratification, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' Now what do you think, Magandiya? When that man blind from birth took the grimy, oil-stained rag and put it on; and, having put it on, gratified, exclaimed words of gratification, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean': Did he do so knowing & seeing, or out of faith in the man with good eyesight?"

 

"Of course he did it not knowing & not seeing, master Gotama, but out of faith in the man with good eyesight."

 

"In the same way, Magandiya, the wanderers of other sects are blind & eyeless. Without knowing freedom from disease, without seeing Unbinding, they still speak this verse:

Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease.

 

"This verse was stated by earlier worthy ones, fully self-awakened:

Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease. The eightfold: the foremost of paths going to the Deathless, Secure.

 

"But now it has gradually become a verse of run-of-the-mill people.

 

"This body, Magandiya, is a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction. And yet you say, with reference to this body, which is a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction: 'This is that freedom from disease, master Gotama. This is that Unbinding,' for you don't have the noble vision with which you would know freedom from disease and see Unbinding."

 

"I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I would know freedom from disease, that I would see Unbinding."

 

"Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... the sun or the moon. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, but in spite of the medicine his eyesight would not appear or grow clear. What do you think, Magandiya? Would that doctor have nothing but his share of weariness & disappointment?"

 

"Yes, master Gotama."

 

"In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma — 'This is that freedom from disease; this is that Unbinding' — and you on your part did not know freedom from disease or see Unbinding, that would be wearisome for me; that would be troublesome for me."

 

"I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I would know freedom from disease, that I would see Unbinding."

 

"Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... the sun or the moon. Now suppose that a certain man were to take a grimy, oil-stained rag and fool him, saying, 'Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' The blind man would take it and put it on.

 

"Then his friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him: purges from above & purges from below, ointments & counter-ointments and treatments through the nose. And thanks to the medicine his eyesight would appear & grow clear. Then together with the arising of his eyesight, he would abandon whatever passion & delight he felt for that grimy, oil-stained rag. And he would regard that man as an enemy & no friend at all, and think that he deserved to be killed. 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by that man & his grimy, oil-stained rag! — "Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean."'

 

"In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma — 'This is that freedom from Disease; this is that Unbinding' — and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that Unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to... it was just feeling... just perception... just fabrications... just consciousness that I was clinging to. With my clinging as a requisite condition, there arises becoming... birth... aging & death... sorrow, lamentation, pains, distresses, & despairs. And thus is the origin of this entire mass of stress.'"

 

"I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might rise up from this seat cured of my blindness."

 

"In that case, Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

 

When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer said, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. Let me obtain the going forth in Master Gotama's presence, let me obtain admission."

 

"Anyone, Magandiya, who has previously belonged to another sect and who desires the going forth & admission in this doctrine & discipline, must first undergo probation for four months. If, at the end of four months, the monks feel so moved, they give him the going forth & admit him to the monk's state. But I know distinctions among individuals in this matter."

 

"Master Gotama, if anyone who has previously belonged to another sect and desires the going forth & admission in this doctrine & discipline must first undergo probation for four months; and if, at the end of four months, the monks feel so moved, they give him the going forth & admit him to the monk's state; then I am willing to undergo probation for four years. If, at the end of four years, the monks feel so moved, let them give me the going forth & admit me to the monk's state."

 

Then Magandiya the wanderer received the going forth & the admission in the Blessed One's presence. And not long after his admission — dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute — he in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the holy life, for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven. Magandiya became another one of the arahants.

Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I saw that it is an illusion because if reality is already perfect and complete in this moment (which I saw to be the case), why do I need effort to get to something? So I dropped the effort. But this is ironically still effortful. It is not a natural resolution. I did not see that it is the view of inherency, the attachment to a Here/Now, to an actual ground, that is the problem.

 

The insight arose during contemplation in a vipasasnic setting, it is just realized that everything is disjoint, unsupported, ephemeral, insubstantial, etc

Um. Ok. You seem completely incapable of explaining yourself. Basically, your first sentence is, "I saw that it is an illusion because I saw it to be perfect, and I saw it as perfect because I saw it to be the case. Hahaha! Sameeee thing: "Hey! I saw it! Yea, because...I saw it" Nice...great insight. So wise. And what's wrong with effort? You ever think maybe making an effort is a perfect moment instead of not making an effort...? And your second paragraph is..."the insight just arose." Greeaaaaat. Great explaining there guy. I'm very near just giving up on you if this is just going to be the reply everytime I ask you how you came to a certain insight, why you believe something is the way you think it is, basically...support your claims with some sound sense.

 

The point is everything dependently originates, and the toilet 'moves' or changes accordingly too. There is no 'the toilet' apart from all the conditions at the moment giving rise to the appearance you call 'toilet'.

Ok so this just says toilet appears in different ways. Why are you saying there is no toilet or that the toilet is illusory now?

 

Yes but to grasp it leads to suffering, ultimately. Actually suffering should also be understood in the context of countless lifetimes in samsara.

 

I once went to a bookstore and flipped through a very interesting book on how to quit nicotine. The author used to smoke 40 sticks a day, he's a chain smoker, but managed to quit it entirely through correct understanding of the nature of nicotine and nicotine craving.

 

He says there is nothing great about nicotine at all except that it relieves craving temporarily (in the same way eating food relieves hunger temporarily) giving a false illusion about the greatness of nicotine, but if you don't have that craving or need to begin with, why will you need nicotine? So nicotine is not in itself something great, but it gives temporary relieve to the craving so it is misperceived as something good. It is actually just to satisfy the pathetic nicotine addiction... nothing else. So in order to quit successfully all we have to do is to change our false perception about nicotine. I only read a bit but it is quite an interesting book. Later on, I discovered a sutta that gave a rather similar analogy.

 

Also not just for smoking cravings but basically every situation: for relationships and sexual desires, if you are straight, you aren't attracted to same sex people and you won't find pleasure in same sex relationship (well you do but in a non-sexual friendship manner which is a different story), so basically the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so isn't it the same as the smoking case? I can say the same with food, etc, since one type of food can seem very nice to someone but not nice to someone else (e.g. durian), so the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so the pleasure is derived simply from your craving, and craving arise due to grasping on things falsely (there are also other conditions and factors but those are not primary ones).

 

So it is the disease of craving, clinging that results in suffering. That perceived pleasure itself is a result of the disease of taking suffering to be pleasure, like taking boiling water as pleasurable, or scratching a sore wound as pleasurable. If there is no craving to begin with, there will be peace.

 

This is like feeling a bad diarrhea and stomachache then going to toilet to shit feels great but actually there is nothing great about shitting and if given a choice you prefer not to have diarrhea. Same goes for the leper and the hot boiling water example: pouring boiling water when you're a leper feels great but of course you prefer not to be a leper.

 

Craving, attachment, brings much suffering and harm and yet we constantly indulge in them in delusion so we can never find the peace and happiness of nirvana. Now that we know the possibility of nirvana, we should strive and make an effort.

What a load of textbook bullshit. Are you comparing craving for a hamburger to getting hot water boiled on? Hahahah! That's just sensationalist and incomparable. What if I like beautiful women and smoke cigarettes and don't suffer from that craving? Of even if I do suffer what's the problem? That I suffer? What's wrong with suffering that way then? Hell, having that relief of diarrhea can fell amazing than not having it. It seems like you are totally naive to the meaning and experience of suffering, and believe it's something to be eased from just for the sake of not suffering anymore. This is childish thinking. Anyways, I don't want to talk to you about this because....well, because I don't think we share much ground of understanding in regards to this nor do I believe you have given it much personal insight.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Seen from the perspective of hell, ghost realm is heaven. Seen from the perspective of human realm, anything below that is hell. Seen from the perspective of deva realm, human realm is hell.

 

But none can compare to Nirvana, which is the end of all suffering. All clinging is suffering when compared to Nirvana. All realms are suffering when compared to Nirvana.

 

To paraphrase the Buddha, even when if its a little bit of shit, it's still shit, thus not recommended.

Edited January 2, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Sunya]

Lucky,

Stop being an asshole.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Lucky,

Stop being an asshole.

....

 

What?

 

If you have an objection to what I say say them. Don't call me an asshole because it means nothing other than to show your dislike for what I'm writing.

 

In my opinion, what I write in criticism of Xabir has value. If I sound incredulous, it's because the more I engage in a discussion with Xabir the more it is revealed how obviously contradictory and unsupported his claims are. Despite the paragraphs and paragraphs of very wise sounding terms and quotes he uses, if you just sort of get down to it, Xabir is this groomed Buddhist fanatic and a very naive practitioner. He is very clueless about how his views have been formed and the tidbits of analogy he comes up with, like the santa claus example or this mirror example, just end up sabotaging the very points he is trying to make revealing that his own insights are just copycated ideas from people he has faith in.

 

In the past all this would've been very different since we would be having a discussion contextualized within Buddhism. But now that I approach him outside of that frame, he just sounds like hard headed fundamentalist incapable of clearly outlining or explaining himself in a sensible manner. His entire argument is based on just "Hey I see the Truth! And you don't! Because, well, I see it!" I see something a bit frightening in his demeanor, that he is merely a true believer, that he is completely in the dark about himself (not surprising, since he says he doesn't have a self).

 

What infuriates me is that he often, in his belief that he is awakened and everyone else who is not Buddhist is deluded and ignorant, pretends to understand or have genuine insight into issues such as suffering, that he literally just touches on via the textbook, or his own bible. The truth is, Xabir doesn't really contemplate, but pretends that he has. His so called "contemplations" are just following whatever Thusness or Buddhism tells him is the way reality is, what suffering is, what life should be like, how to behave oneself, how to treat others (oh yes, gain good karma by proselytizing), like some indoctrinated school boy who can't even tie his own shoes, but likes to tell himself how he now knows everything because he does homework every night.

 

What I feel from him is the same feeling when I meet some fundamental and extreme christian telling me I'll go to hell for not believing god, and to prove his statements reads from the bible, and as proof tells me of his dream experiences of seeing jesus, or his daily communion with the Lord (all of this actual events), that he feels Him in the heart. Of course, if you want to learn about Christianity, and providing that this man is somewhat intelligent, it would be a great idea to continue engaging with him. There's nothing wrong with this man, but if you had any sense, you'd look into how this man's convictions came about and realize that it is simply insufficient to believe as "the truth" or the nature of reality. But I do have problems with this man going around being condescending (of course, unintentionally on his part, since he is actually saving souls from damnation in his mind) to others or even intruding on their own rights to explore the notion of God or the Buddha by falsely claiming himself to be an expert.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[guruyoga]

....

 

What?

 

If you have an objection to what I say say them. Don't call me an asshole because it means nothing other than to show your dislike for what I'm writing.

 

 

I find what you write very useful. Helps me question my own limiting beliefs and approach stuff from outside of frameworks within which we so often settle, get cozy and stop contemplating on alternative possibilities with an open mind. Thanks for sharing your insights.

[Sunya]

....

 

What?

 

If you have an objection to what I say say them. Don't call me an asshole because it means nothing other than to show your dislike for what I'm writing.

 

In my opinion, what I write in criticism of Xabir has value. If I sound incredulous, it's because the more I engage in a discussion with Xabir the more it is revealed how obviously contradictory and unsupported his claims are. Despite the paragraphs and paragraphs of very wise sounding terms and quotes he uses, if you just sort of get down to it, Xabir is this groomed Buddhist fanatic and a very naive practitioner. He is very clueless about how his views have been formed and the tidbits of analogy he comes up with, like the santa claus example or this mirror example, just end up sabotaging the very points he is trying to make revealing that his own insights are just copycated ideas from people he has faith in.

 

In the past all this would've been very different since we would be having a discussion contextualized within Buddhism. But now that I approach him outside of that frame, he just sounds like hard headed fundamentalist incapable of clearly outlining or explaining himself in a sensible manner. His entire argument is based on just "Hey I see the Truth! And you don't! Because, well, I see it!" I see something a bit frightening in his demeanor, that he is merely a true believer, that he is completely in the dark about himself (not surprising, since he says he doesn't have a self).

 

What infuriates me is that he often, in his belief that he is awakened and everyone else who is not Buddhist is deluded and ignorant, pretends to understand or have genuine insight into issues such as suffering, that he literally just touches on via the textbook, or his own bible. The truth is, Xabir doesn't really contemplate, but pretends that he has. His so called "contemplations" are just following whatever Thusness or Buddhism tells him is the way reality is, what suffering is, what life should be like, how to behave oneself, how to treat others (oh yes, gain good karma by proselytizing), like some indoctrinated school boy who can't even tie his own shoes, but likes to tell himself how he now knows everything because he does homework every night.

 

What I feel from him is the same feeling when I meet some fundamental and extreme christian telling me I'll go to hell for not believing god, and to prove his statements reads from the bible, and as proof tells me of his dream experiences of seeing jesus, or his daily communion with the Lord (all of this actual events), that he feels Him in the heart. Of course, if you want to learn about Christianity, and providing that this man is somewhat intelligent, it would be a great idea to continue engaging with him. There's nothing wrong with this man, but if you had any sense, you'd look into how this man's convictions came about and realize that it is simply insufficient to believe as "the truth" or the nature of reality. But I do have problems with this man going around being condescending (of course, unintentionally on his part, since he is actually saving souls from damnation in his mind) to others or even intruding on their own rights to explore the notion of God or the Buddha by falsely claiming himself to be an expert.

 

OK. I called you an asshole not because of what you say but how you say it. I haven't been here in months. I left due to the incessant argumentative attitudes from some members. Now I see the same from you, someone I used to respect. Your snarky, arrogant, and condescending attitude makes me wonder why Xabir even bothers responding to you. He's always respectful and calm. If you're so enlightened why the anger and hostility? Where's your respect toward another being on the path?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Sunya

[Lucky7Strikes]

OK. I called you an asshole not because of what you say but how you say it. I haven't been here in months. I left due to the incessant argumentative attitudes from some members. Now I see the same from you, someone I used to respect. Your snarky, arrogant, and condescending attitude makes me wonder why Xabir even bothers responding to you. He's always respectful and calm. If you're so enlightened why the anger and hostility? Where's your respect toward another being on the path?

I am not enlightened nor do I think I am close to such thing as enlightenment. I have never in the course of these discussions pretended to or claimed to know or have seen a higher truth than Xabir. I've just asked him bunch of questions to which he gives very roundabout, unsupported, grandiose, contradictory and impractical answers all under the assumption that indeed he is preaching the truth. Xabir's the one who has been running all over saying he is awakened and everyone else is deluded. His condescension is very real and imbedded in the way he interacts with people. especially on thetaobums. On Dharma Wheel he is a bit different, much more open minded and sheepish. On his own site, he acts as the authority unless Thusness chimes in.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky or arrogant, but I guess my posts can very easily be read that way since I'm just trying to write in a way that shows how obviously flawed Xabir's foundation is. This is very difficult to see for someone who comes across his posts at face value, because they easily seem very intelligent, wise, well thought out, and genuinely insightful. His incessant quoting adds further to this misconception that these claims are well supported. But, again, it's like a priest quoting the bible to support his beliefs. I'm trying to say, "duh, look at how ridiculous what you are really saying is. Look at how much of a nonsense it is when we organize it 1, 2, 3." It's a nice contrast to all the nobility he shows

 

When we are speaking in very abstract terms, I find it so easy to become lost in the abstraction itself to not realize how we are just stampeding over the blatant contradictions, meaninglessness, and the carelessness evident beneath the fanciful terms like emptiness, luminosity, dependent origination, anatta, and so on.

 

Despite all this I respect Xabir. If I didn't respect him I wouldn't engage him in pages of discussion. I respect him as a seeker and a practitioner, that's why I reply to what he writes. I also think he is a very interesting character . Maybe you are misunderstanding our communication. I have absolutely no anger or hostility towards Xabir, but consider him a friend. He has a passion for what he believes is the truth and I have a passion for questioning the certainties we hold about life. But I do get frustrated how he just repeats his dogma sometimes and doesn't pay attention to what I write. So I feel like calling him a buffoon too.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

am not enlightened

 

When we are speaking in very abstract terms, I find it so easy to become lost in the abstraction itself to not realize how we are just stampeding over the blatant contradictions, meaninglessness, and the carelessness evident beneath the fanciful terms like emptiness, luminosity, dependent origination, anatta, and so on.

 

I agree. Carry on...

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Some more excerpts from "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol (b.1608) will follow. Note the similarities to how I am describing "God." It seems almost like Christianity presented these ideas in a way that would make sense to the ancient Hebrews and their paternalistic culture.

 

These are all from the chapter entitled "View":

 

 

 

"Your natural essence... ultimately.. has not true existence. Thus, it is a great emptiness free from the limitations of arising, dwelling, and ceasing - the unconditioned dharmadhatu. Since the beginning it is a nature in which the three kayas are spontaneously present, and it is known as the "ground mahamudra of the essential nature of things."

The Guhyagarbha Tantra teaches:

"This mind-essence devoid of ground and root

Is the basis of all phenomena."

 

This essence is not something that exists within the mind-stream of just one individual person or just one buddha. It is the actual basis of all that appears and exists, the whole of samsara and nirvana.

 

....

 

This nature present as a neutral and undetermined ground, neither realized nor not realized, is known as the "all-ground," "alaya," because it forms the basis for both samasara and nirvana. This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly. That cognizance, called "all-ground consciousness," is like a mirror and its brightness.

 

....

 

The exact nature of this original state or mode of being is totally free in being inseparable appearance and emptiness and vividly clear in being the unity of luminosity and emptiness. It is utterly open being all-pervasive primordial freedom and completely even in being unconditioned spontaneous presence. This is the main body of the view, the natural state as it is, primordially self-existing and originally present as the essence of all of samsara and nirvana. There is no other separate piece or fragment of a view than this.

 

To see the inherent falsity in dualistic fixation through understanding this primordial condition is called "realizing the view"

 

..

 

In actuality, all of appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana, is the display of the three kayas. Your own mind as well has the nature of the three kayas and itself is not apart from ultimate dharmadatu ("dharmadatu: "the nature of phenomena" beyond arising, dwelling, and ceasing").

 

..

 

The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity. To recognize and settle on this natural state is called perfectly realizing the faultless and correct view." (end quote)

 

 

So, again, in correlations, it's as though "The Great Spirit" is dharmakaya; all angels, other gods, and buddhas (including Jesus) are sambhogakaya; and The Tao is nirmanakaya. To see the inseparability of these, ourselves, and existence, is, perhaps, true "non-duality."

 

So the correlations here with the other mystical traditions appears, to me, to be separated merely by their explanatory details, of which Buddhism is perhaps the most detailed in its literal and logical directions.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Simple_Jack]

Some more excerpts from "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol (b.1608) will follow. Note the similarities to how I am describing "God." It seems almost like Christianity presented these ideas in a way that would make sense to the ancient Hebrews and their paternalistic culture.

 

These are all from the chapter entitled "View":

 

 

 

"Your natural essence... ultimately.. has not true existence. Thus, it is a great emptiness free from the limitations of arising, dwelling, and ceasing - the unconditioned dharmadhatu. Since the beginning it is a nature in which the three kayas are spontaneously present, and it is known as the "ground mahamudra of the essential nature of things."

The Guhyagarbha Tantra teaches:

"This mind-essence devoid of ground and root

Is the basis of all phenomena."

 

This essence is not something that exists within the mind-stream of just one individual person or just one buddha. It is the actual basis of all that appears and exists, the whole of samsara and nirvana.

 

....

 

This nature present as a neutral and undetermined ground, neither realized nor not realized, is known as the "all-ground," "alaya," because it forms the basis for both samasara and nirvana. This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly. That cognizance, called "all-ground consciousness," is like a mirror and its brightness.

 

....

 

The exact nature of this original state or mode of being is totally free in being inseparable appearance and emptiness and vividly clear in being the unity of luminosity and emptiness. It is utterly open being all-pervasive primordial freedom and completely even in being unconditioned spontaneous presence. This is the main body of the view, the natural state as it is, primordially self-existing and originally present as the essence of all of samsara and nirvana. There is no other separate piece or fragment of a view than this.

 

To see the inherent falsity in dualistic fixation through understanding this primordial condition is called "realizing the view"

 

..

 

In actuality, all of appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana, is the display of the three kayas. Your own mind as well has the nature of the three kayas and itself is not apart from ultimate dharmadatu ("dharmadatu: "the nature of phenomena" beyond arising, dwelling, and ceasing").

 

..

 

The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity. To recognize and settle on this natural state is called perfectly realizing the faultless and correct view." (end quote)

 

 

So, again, in correlations, it's as though "The Great Spirit" is dharmakaya; all angels, other gods, and buddhas (including Jesus) are sambhogakaya; and The Tao is nirmanakaya. To see the inseparability of these, ourselves, and existence, is, perhaps, true "non-duality."

 

So the correlations here with the other mystical traditions appears, to me, to be separated merely by their explanatory details, of which Buddhism is perhaps the most detailed in its literal and logical directions.

So, again, in correlations, it's as though "The Great Spirit" is dharmakaya; all angels, other gods, and buddhas (including Jesus) are sambhogakaya; and The Tao is nirmanakaya. To see the inseparability of these, ourselves, and existence, is, perhaps, true "non-duality."

 

Ahh, see you're inadvertently subsuming "dharmakaya" as a ground of being once again. The way you're positing it is similar to "Brahman" of Advaita Vedanta. Dharmakaya is not a ground of being where things manifest from; it is talking about emptiness/D.O. Refer back to my previous posts in this thread.

 

all angels, other gods, and buddhas (including Jesus) are sambhogakaya;

Actually, these would be the Nirmanakaya aspect, based off of those individual mind-streams karma. For example: What we know as "Shakyamuni Buddha" was a nirmanakaya or transformation body.

 

It's probably best you don't get too hung up on what this all exactly means right now, though I'm just saying...The way you're positing "dharmakaya," is very similar to how "Brahman" is described in Advaita Vedanta. That is not how "dharmakaya" should be understood in Buddhism.