Exploring the Now

[Protector]

Carrying water chopping wood I see

[Marblehead]

you're just lazy

 

Thanks Buddy!

 

No, not lazy; just contented. Nothing left to search for.

[Protector]

Thanks Buddy!

 

No, not lazy; just contented. Nothing left to search for.

 

that's called being oooooooooooold

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Thanks Buddy!

 

No, not lazy; just contented. Nothing left to search for.

 

 

well tomato potahto potato tomahto.

 

 

Old, lazy, contented, not much wiggle room there

[Marblehead]

Old, lazy, contented, not much wiggle room there

Don't need the wiggle room. I did plenty of wiggling when I was young.

[Aaron]

I love these Buddhist circle jerks... now if only Vaj would come back, it would be just like the good old days.

 

Aaron

[xabir2005]

OK, to summarize,...as xabir has not experienced Presence, nor is interested in understanding from a Present point of view, he does not comprehend my posts,...and whereas VMarco has not taken the course in the Seven Stages of Thusness, V does not comprehend xabir's.

 

VMarco would NEVER suggest that any "I Am" is connected with pure presence. Any "I Am" is part of alaya, and the Present is beyond alaya.

 

Again,...there is no One without a Many, no self without other, no here without a there, no "I" or "I Am" beyond alaya,...the Present is proof of that.

 

The only absolute liberation is the full recognition of alaya for what it is. Let's be clear on that,...an "I Am" (herewithin defined as an I-ness of all "others", or Oneness of the Many) which must be within alaya to be an "I Am," can understand full liberation, but not necessarily. Any "I Am" can only recognize full liberation when Present,...as already discussed in the thread on The Nature of Non-Existence

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22178-about-the-nature-of-non-existence/page__st__70

 

A huge problem discussed by the Buddha, was those who realized what is called I Am, like Arhats or the Brahman level of phenomenal existence, are not only unliberated, but in place that believes they are,...as expressed in several ways in the Nature of Non-Existence thread.

 

Over and over the Buddha described Arhats as still holding on to the notion of an ego, a personality, a being and a life. I recall Buddha saying once that as began to discuss the nature of reality the Arhats who were there collapsed from the shock,...and thus unable to hear what was being pointed to.

 

VMarco is quite certain that all those who are attached to the course on Seven Stages of Thusness will disagree. It is also certain that V's message is quite clear,...uncover the Present, by hook or crook, and all will be directly answered for you.

 

However, keep in mind, the Present cannot be accessed through the Six Senses, and thus intellectual jargon. The intellectual jargon can lead to a myriad of special, bliss-like dimensions, where you could be a god,...but that is not the Present.

 

Xabir, seth ananda, simple jack and vajrahridaya may all disagree. Perhaps they are all even Arhats. So what. You must uncover the Present for yourself. As Voltaire said, "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." If you wish to be a Trustee within the Box, then do what you are doing,...but if you want out of the prison of the Box,...uncover the Present.

 

Truth is not ineffable, but only denied to protect the false.

 

"If you go on doing what you're doing now, you are very likely to go on getting the same results, as you are getting now.

 

If you want something different, you must do something different, and keep varying your behaviour until you get the result that you want."

 

V

Again, I insist, I have experienced the same Pure Presence you are talking about, and you are always making your fake strawman about Brahman (and your fabricated strawmans "a myriad of special, bliss-like dimensions, where you could be a god" are just laughably irrelevant) that simply don't represent what Thusness or what Advaita is really talking about. And anyone who reads Thusness Stage 1 with unbiased mind will be able to see that they are the same. It is just the same-same non-conceptual timeless Pure Presence, the pure consciousness-existence-presence that so many are talking about. Even the Eckhart Tolle - author of The Power of Now - equates the Now with "I AM" in his own words. But you just like to play with words, such as "it is not I AM but the non-illusory Self" which are actually just two different words for the same thing.

 

And if you put aside your fabricated strawman version of Brahman and just talk to a Hindu about your experience, I am sure they will see a lot in common, as this great article ( http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx ) states:

 

"If you have understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and told him happily, “This is the same view as our Vedanta!.” Also, a few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the Jonangpa, had visited Muktinàth, where he presented his views to the Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view."

 

...

 

"If the Ultimate View of Buddhism is Shentong, why did thousands of Brahmins from the time of the Buddha until the 12th – 13thcenturies, become Buddhists and refute the Hindu view as wrong? Many of them were brilliant Hindu / Vedic scholars before they became Buddhists. How could all of these scholars uphold the Shentong view while refuting the view of the Upanishads, if they were saying the same thing?

 

Shenphen Hookham says, “They have their own view and we have our own, so what’s wrong if they are the same?” This implies that the views are the same. Do all the Shentongpas agree to her reply? If they do agree with her then were all the scholars like Candarakãrti, Jñànagarbha, Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, Ratnakarashànti, Bhavaviveka, Buddhapàlita, Sàntideva, Prajñàkaramati, and thousands of others just fools to refute the Hindu âtmà view of the Upanishads and become Buddhists?"

 

 

Next...

 

Obviously you have no idea what the realization of an Arhat is. And never have I suggested that the Arhat is one who is of the I AM stage realization, or your realization.

 

Why? The Arhat is one who already realizes anatta, or emptiness of self. In fact even a stream entry has already realized this. This realization corresponds to Thusness Stage 5.

 

Then what about Bodhisattva? A 1st bhumi bodhisattva is defined as one who realizes the twofold emptiness - the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena: the latter corresponds to Thusness Stage 6 realization.

 

The first emptiness: the emptiness of a subjective self, agent (perceiver/controller/doer/thinker), soul, being, within or apart from the five aggregates. One sees that the framework that "a seer is seeing the seen" is delusional, I.e.in seeing always just the experience of the seen, colours, shapes and forms without a seer. One realizes that a subjective self is illusory.

 

Emptiness of phenomena means each of the five aggregates does not have objective existence. There is no formness in form, no substance of thought, etc. So they are appearing but empty, illusory like a magician's trick, like a mirage, a dream.

 

Here is an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary site on the definition of twofold Emptiness:

 

Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.

 

...

 

One last thing before I move on to the next point - your statement "Over and over the Buddha described Arhats as still holding on to the notion of an ego, a personality, a being and a life." Is wrong. Instead this is what the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think, can an Arhat have the thought, 'Have I attained the Way of the Arhat?'" Subhuti said, "No World Honored One. Why? Actually there is no dharma called 'Arhat.' World Honored One, if an Arhat had the thought, 'I have attained the Way of the Arhat,' that would be an attachment to self, others, living beings and to a life." I don't see how this statement can be misunderstood as it is as clear as daylight - unless you were not reading with two eyes open. It clearly states that an arhat does not have self-view and self-notions, and if he were to have it, he cannot be called a real arhat. All Buddhists will agree that an arhat is free from conceit or the view and sense of a self, since that is by classical definition what an arhat is about - realizing and perfecting the realization and experience of the truth of no-self, all defilements and afflictions stemming from self-view and conceit are destroyed. Also you said "I recall Buddha saying once that as began to discuss the nature of reality the Arhats who were there collapsed from the shock,...and thus unable to hear what was being pointed to. " While it is true some Mahayana sutras may have chosen to present things this way, they are not historical occurences as only the Pali canon of scriptures present the historical account of Buddha and the arhats - the Mahayana sutras are latter days visionary accounts of unknown masters and so are metaphorical and not something that truly occurred in the historical sense, and anyway real arhats cannot even experience the slightest shock or fear much less faint from it, but I disgress as the issue of the origin of Mahayana sutras and Vajrayana tantras has been discussed in details in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 and http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434746

 

 

Next issue I want to address is your notion of four turnings. While not denying the validity of them, they must be understood in context - in other words you should have a firm understanding of each preceding turning before understanding the next, otherwise your understanding will be no different from the non-Buddhist.

 

As Thusness have told me 6 years ago when I only began to know him: the Buddha is not here to teach some minor aspect of our essence, I.e. The luminous clarity/luminosity, as that is already done in the Upanishads and the Vedas.

 

Without clearly understanding and realizing anatta and emptiness, the luminosity will be grasped wrongly and turned into the Ultimate Self.

 

Buddhism does not deny the luminous clarity, but through the realization of the twofold emptiness we relinquish all grasping including the reification of the "Presence" into an Ultimate Self. Luminous clarity is not "empty of other but truly exists as a Self" like the Shentong thought: rather luminous clarity is empty of any truly existent self. It is neither intrinsic emptiness nor extrinsic emptiness - both are extreme views.

 

And we do not reify luminosity and presence-awareness into some ultimate non-phenomenal noumenon, and due to nondual insight we see the one taste in all sense perceptions and thoughts - what the Mahamudra masters keep talking about.

 

Also, I see that you like to quote Mahamudra masters, but you should understand that Mahamudra masters always talk about the emptiness of the nature of mind. No Mahamudra master that I know reify reality the way you do like the extreme shentongpas (some Mahamudra masters teach shentong but it is a very mild version without falling much into great faults of eternalism). And the great Mahasiddhas always sing about the emptiness of mind, such as what 3rd Karmapa said: "Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut." And like what the sutras stated: "Thus, there is no mind in the mind, but the nature of the mind is luminous-clarity (prabhāsvarā)."

 

While the nature of mind is empty of self, nonetheless the unceasing stream of luminous display isn't denied. But this is clearly different from some of the Shentong sources you present which interpretes clear light through the eternalist framework. The clear light in the Mahamudra tradition is also taught to be completely empty of self. And anyway the Prasangika Madhyamika view is held as definitive throughout all four traditions in Vajrayana including Kagyu and Mahamudra (not Shentong or at least not your extreme version of it), the view of Prasangika Madhyamika is philosophically the same with Mahamudra and Dzogchen, except that the latter two systems introduces students to the view not through a series of logical inference or analysis but through direct pointing out into the nature of mind.

 

So while the third and fourth turning talks about luminous mind and introduces the student straight to it, it always goes along with emptiness: luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and is not emptiness as you understand it, it does not mean emptiness of other.

 

Without right understanding of anatta and emptiness, there is no need for Buddhism at all.

 

P.s. I, simple jack, seth ananda, vajrahridaya, are not into arhat path or hinayana, we study mahayana, vajrayana and the direct path of mahamudra and dzogchen in fact. We just happen not to share your perculiar view of Buddhism (skewed towards a certain shentong view) which we think is extreme and eternalistic. We see clearly that your view is no different from the Hindus... And anyway you also grossly misunderstood what an arhat (or a bodhisattva) have realized.

 

I doubt you will understand nor concur much with what I write (as you yourself said you don't understand the seven stages) so I will just leave it at this for now.

Edited February 8, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Thanks Buddy!

 

No, not lazy; just contented. Nothing left to search for.

 

Yes,...not lazy. Lazy would be good, as Dolano said:

 

Yes,...contented. What Gurdjeiff called Man #2,...he who realizes he's in a prison, and aims to be one of the prison trustees. (Man #1 doesn't realize he's in a box, while Man #3 attempts to escape the box. Buddha would be Man #7, which has 3 aspects that only Man #4 and greater can fathom.

[Vmarco]

Again, I insist, I have experienced the same Pure Presence you are talking about, and you are always making your fake strawman about Brahman (and your fabricated strawmans "a myriad of special, bliss-like dimensions, where you could be a god" are just laughably irrelevant) that simply don't represent what Thusness or what Advaita is really talking about. And anyone who reads Thusness Stage 1 with unbiased mind will be able to see that they are the same. It is just the same-same non-conceptual timeless Pure Presence, the pure consciousness-existence-presence that so many are talking about. Even the Eckhart Tolle - author of The Power of Now - equates the Now with "I AM" in his own words. But you just like to play with words, such as "it is not I AM but the non-illusory Self" which are actually just two different words for the same thing....

 

And if you put aside your fabricated strawman version of Brahman and just talk to a Hindu about your experience, I doubt you will understand nor concur much with what I write (as you yourself said you don't understand the seven stages) so I will just leave it at this for now.

 

Having 7 years of college, mostly Religious Studies, and more than 50 years of life experience, I feel I should be able to at least get the drift of what someone is discussing, or find some common ground. You are correct about understanding you,...no slight intended, but I'd have better luck with a schizophrenic.

 

Although I use some quotes from Tolle, he does not impress me in the least. I'm actually amazed that a theist like himself even says some of the things he does.

 

As for Hinduism, Ringo Tulku, Brahman, etc., I could also care less. I have not seen any evidence of that religions interest in the Present. The Buddha asserted the same, many times.

 

As mentioned, Xabir has placed too much attachment to the intellectual views of theists, believers, the sciential minded, etc., to realize the Present. Those things, concepts, faith-based conditions cannot enter the Unconditionalness of the Present.

 

Let me rephrase that,...a condition cannot enter the Unconditional,...if it was even possible, it would instantly render the Unconditional conditional. But that's how theists, believers, and the sciential minded are,...although they rant about others attempting to bring their conditions into the unconditional, they themselves insist that they get to bring their conditions (formed through the ignorance of ignorant interpretations accumulated by other conditioned wannebes, thus establishing an orthodox tradition to be upheld at all costs.

 

Again,...there is no Present in time. If someones believes that they are "pure presence" within a time construct, like this "Seven Stages of Thusness", it's just mental masterbation. Uncovering the Present is like effortless suicide.

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19890-surrender%3B-thats-what-is/page__p__282146__hl__suicide__fromsearch__1entry282146

 

You cannot bring all that baggage of I Am Stages, the ridiculous notion that Shentong is Hinduism, etc. with you into the Present. Don't recall any inject of hinduisn in the Mountain Doctrine or the Essence of Other Emptiness.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness

 

Xabir, you have much unlearning to do before having a possibility of uncovering the Present. You need what Jean Houston called developing some leaky margins around all those beliefs and labeling of yours.

 

And for Twinner,...I'll close with a Buddhist circle jerk:

 

"From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." Buddha

[Informer]

[Informer]

I am curious V, do you think your realization coincide with Dzogchen? I have just recently been looking into it and it seems pretty interesting.

 

One point of differences I assume is that you consider Buddhism closest to complete from most other teachings or paths.

 

I have found this to be the closest for me in regards to Buddhism on the Dzogchen page from Wiki: "From the perspective of Dzogchen, the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is said to be pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness or naturally occurring timeless awareness. "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

 

Would you agree with the ascertain can be concluded as true? That awareness is that which is now?

Edited February 8, 2012 by Informer

[xabir2005]

Having 7 years of college, mostly Religious Studies, and more than 50 years of life experience, I feel I should be able to at least get the drift of what someone is discussing, or find some common ground. You are correct about understanding you,...no slight intended, but I'd have better luck with a schizophrenic.

 

Although I use some quotes from Tolle, he does not impress me in the least. I'm actually amazed that a theist like himself even says some of the things he does.

 

As for Hinduism, Ringo Tulku, Brahman, etc., I could also care less. I have not seen any evidence of that religions interest in the Present. The Buddha asserted the same, many times.

 

As mentioned, Xabir has placed too much attachment to the intellectual views of theists, believers, the sciential minded, etc., to realize the Present. Those things, concepts, faith-based conditions cannot enter the Unconditionalness of the Present.

 

Let me rephrase that,...a condition cannot enter the Unconditional,...if it was even possible, it would instantly render the Unconditional conditional. But that's how theists, believers, and the sciential minded are,...although they rant about others attempting to bring their conditions into the unconditional, they themselves insist that they get to bring their conditions (formed through the ignorance of ignorant interpretations accumulated by other conditioned wannebes, thus establishing an orthodox tradition to be upheld at all costs.

 

Again,...there is no Present in time. If someones believes that they are "pure presence" within a time construct, like this "Seven Stages of Thusness", it's just mental masterbation. Uncovering the Present is like effortless suicide.

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19890-surrender%3B-thats-what-is/page__p__282146__hl__suicide__fromsearch__1entry282146

 

You cannot bring all that baggage of I Am Stages, the ridiculous notion that Shentong is Hinduism, etc. with you into the Present. Don't recall any inject of hinduisn in the Mountain Doctrine or the Essence of Other Emptiness.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness

 

Xabir, you have much unlearning to do before having a possibility of uncovering the Present. You need what Jean Houston called developing some leaky margins around all those beliefs and labeling of yours.

 

And for Twinner,...I'll close with a Buddhist circle jerk:

 

"From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." Buddha

The problem with you is that your religious studies (probably more connected with theism) have resulted in your blanket "oh this is theism" on every religious person, tradition... And your life experience doesn't seem to help that much in this regard. And this is what you need to decondition yourself if you are ever to free yourself from ignorant notions about the other traditions.

 

Obviously, you are unable to see teachings like Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism or even Samkhya which has nothing to do with theism, creation, or a creator - they are simply teaching the same-same Pure Presence you experience (and don't give me quotes from unreliable sources to support your strawman brahman). Obviously most people are just theists in your particular Western society (not mine - I am Asian) or have simple minded belief about God, but certainly Not All. In fact is it hilarious to even think I could be accused of Theism - joke of the year... You are truly an incorrigible pigeon-holer. It just shows how much your conditioning is distorting your perception of others with your blanket "they are all just theists"... Preventing you from ever understanding what the other party is talking about.

 

You are unable to see, as Seth Ananda have said, a wide spectrum of practices and views due to your blanket "oh its just theism" or "oh its just alaya" on everything.

 

I, For one, am not a believer of theism, god, creator, creation or whatever. Never have I ever held such views in my life, ever. I do not come from a Christian or theistic background.

 

In fact, I do not even hold your eternalist view of a "non-illusory Self" (Thusness Stage 1) - the views get refined as insights unfold without denying or rejecting the luminous clarity. It is not like clear light is denied (how can it be), only that false views about it, and its relationship with all transient phenomenon gets transformed as the path of insight unfolds... Eventually you will realize the true meaning of the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness.

 

What you realized as Pure Presence is merely one aspect pertaining to the non-conceptual mind realm (the nonconceptual pure presence, existence, beingness, consciousness) which you then reify into a non phenomenal noumenon... You are still unable to see the one taste of clear light in all perceptions and phenomena, the deconstruction of observer-observed duality, the truth of anatta and emptiness.

 

If you do not open your mind and choose to remain close minded... There can't be progress. So you still have much unlearning to do and you need to become more openminded before the further phases of insights can arise... I can say from experience the Pure Presence is just the first step. And the path has nothing to do with "intellectual masturbation" but are real insights into what is always already the case - only not discovered for so long. It is about deconstructing your false views that are distorting your perception even after countless glimpses of the pure presence you experienced.

 

Its good you have faith in Buddha, but without going through all the Thusness Seven Stages you will not correctly understand how is it that Buddhism differs from other teachings.

 

P.s. Talking to you is like this:

 

Me: the apple I just ate is sweet.

You: no what you ate is not apple it is pear, only I have real apple, and you are a theist believer.

Me: no I don't believe in god, and what I ate is in fact an apple.

You: no only theists (??) would mistake a pear for an apple... Blah blah blah

Edited February 8, 2012 by xabir2005

[KarthusMeanor]

The problem with you is that your religious studies (probably more connected with theism) have resulted in your blanket "oh this is theism" on every religious person, tradition... And your life experience doesn't seem to help that much in this regard. And this is what you need to decondition yourself if you are ever to free yourself from ignorant notions the other traditions.

 

Obviously, you are unable to see teachings like Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism or even Samkhya which has nothing to do with theism, creation, or a creator - they are simply teaching the same-same Pure Presence you experience (and don't give me quotes from unreliable sources to support your strawman brahman). Obviously most people are just theists in your particular Western society (not mine - I am Asian) or have simple minded belief about God, but certainly Not All. In fact is it hilarious to even think I could be accused of Theism - joke of the year... You are truly an incorrigible pigeon-holer. It just shows how much your conditioning is distorting your perception of others with your blanket "they are all just theists"... Preventing you from ever understanding what the other party is talking about.

 

You are unable to see, as Seth Ananda have said, a wide spectrum of practices and views due to your blanket "oh its just theism" or "oh its just alaya" on everything.

 

I, For one, am not a believer of theism, god, creator, creation or whatever. Never have I ever held such views in my life, ever. I do not come from a Christian or theistic background.

 

In fact, I do not even hold your eternalist view of a "non-illusory Self" (Thusness Stage 1) - the views get refined as insights unfold without denying or rejecting the luminous clarity. It is not like clear light is denied (how can it be), only that false views about it, and its relationship with all transient phenomenon gets transformed as the path of insight unfolds... Eventually you will realize the true meaning of the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness.

 

What you realized as Pure Presence is merely one aspect pertaining to the non-conceptual mind realm... You are still unable to see the one taste of clear light in all perceptions, the deconstruction of observer-observed duality, the truth of anatta and emptiness.

 

If you do not open your mind and choose to remain close minded... There can't be progress. So you still have much unlearning and becoming more openminded before the further phases of insights can arise... I can say from experience the Pure Presence is just the first step.

 

Its good you have faith in Buddha, but without going through all the Thusness Seven Stages you will not correctly understand how is it that Buddhism differs from other teachings.

 

P.s. Talking to you is like this:

 

Me: the apple I just ate is sweet.

You: no what you ate is not apple it is pear, only I have real apple, and you are a theist believer.

Me: no I don't believer in god, and what I ate is in fact an apple.

You: no only theists (??) would mistake a pear for an apple... Blah blah blah

 

Haha, Xabir "thinks" he's a badass.

 

I can assure you that you are hardly a blip on the radar, your insight may seem profound to you but it is nothing.

 

If you would like to disagree then test your mettle as you dream.

Edited February 8, 2012 by KarthusMeanor

[xabir2005]

Haha, Xabir "thinks" he's a badass.

 

I can assure you that you are hardly a blip on the radar, your insight may seem profound to you but it is nothing.

 

If you would like to disagree then test your mettle as you dream.

???

 

Completely off topic and irrelevant to this discussion.

 

If you don't see value in my insights then too bad. I can't be bothered - I only share (as some may benefit from it) but what others think of it is none of my business.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh god, the irony!

[idiot_stimpy]

Would one want to be a blip on the radar? And if there is a longing to be a blip on the radar, from what place inside is this coming from?

[Vmarco]

I am curious V, do you think your realization coincide with Dzogchen? I have just recently been looking into it and it seems pretty interesting.

 

One point of differences I assume is that you consider Buddhism closest to complete from most other teachings or paths.

 

I have found this to be the closest for me in regards to Buddhism on the Dzogchen page from Wiki: "From the perspective of Dzogchen, the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is said to be pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness or naturally occurring timeless awareness. "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

 

Would you agree with the ascertain can be concluded as true? That awareness is that which is now?

 

My initiation into Buddhism in the early 70's was with Kagyu and Mahamudra, and understand Dzogchen is quite similiar. And yes, I fully agree that the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is uncovered in the Now, Present, or Instant. Nothing surpasses the Now. The 16th Karmapa correctly said that the mind of nowness is untouched by fixations on birth and liberation. It is unshaken by projections.

 

All the hoopla, and 84,000 aspects of teachings, are simply mind trainings to cultivate flashing out of alaya, and uncover the Present. Today, in this perceived time in duality, language and the conceptual understanding of physics makes explaining much more easier. For example, consider Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

That is pure Mahamudra.

 

Or how about this,...which I posted before,...Visualize a keyhole for a moment, one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, as in old Colonial and Victorian homes. Now, describe that hole. Some may say that it has the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle aligned on the bottom; others could respond that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate that is attached to the door, which is connected to the wall, etc. Perhaps the hole could be looked through, so one could remark about what is seen on the other side. However, none of that actually describes the hole; all of the preceding descriptions are narratives about what is around or can be seen through the hole. Nevertheless, that is how most sentient beings perceive their own wholeness: by what is around it.

 

There is no phenomena around the Present that somehow makes the Present the Present.

 

As Tilopa put it,..."The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed; By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises; Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals."

Foreget about intellectualizing on what is "clear light", as sentient beings attempt to do, like they define a hole by what's around it,...focus instead on letting go of the barriers we build against it being revealed.

 

Dzogchen can be one of the Direct Paths,...for others it can be as a religion to cling to for their identity.

 

"Know the state of pure and total presence to be a vast expanse without center or border." Longchenpa

 

The Present is absent any Center or Boundary, any One or Many, any I Am or Other Am, any Here or There.

 

V

[Vmarco]

[Aaron]

Haha, Xabir "thinks" he's a badass.

 

I can assure you that you are hardly a blip on the radar, your insight may seem profound to you but it is nothing.

 

If you would like to disagree then test your mettle as you dream.

 

I can assure you that everything you say seems very arrogant and malicious indeed. Although Xabir may not be what he says he is, and I wont say he isn't, that's for him to decide, at least he's respectful in the way he talks to others and he obviously has a grasp of the nature of compassion. Perhaps, since his grasp of these things seems superior to yours, you should let your ego rest and listen, maybe some of what he's learned will rub off on you.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Xabir and V Marco,

 

Will it help to point out now that neither of you will convince the other of your view or that you may be letting your egos pull you into a discussion that doesn't need to take place? What's the point in this discussion anyways? I'm not sure why this whole "Exploring the Now" thing is even important, especially since it seems to be a baited topic meant to draw people in so that they can be told they're wrong.

 

Anyways, neither of you will listen and everyone will have this argument anyways. I'll just pop in now and again to let you know who's winning, since I'm sure, from what I've read of your comments so far, that's of some importance to each of you.

 

Aaron

Edited February 8, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

My mistake,...I thought this Hinduism, that you consistantly mention in posts above, was a theistic religion.

 

Eckhart Tolle, in all the writings I read, is certainly a theist, and promotes theism. However, I look forward to his emancipation from such a meme.

 

If you had ever uncovered the Present, you would not only understand that no gods reside there, but that no theist can ever uncover the Present. As I mentioned, conditions cannot enter the unconditional. Thus a "blanket for theism" is quite appropriate.

 

As for faith in Buddhism,...you won't find any suggestion of that in my posts. On the contrary,.."Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions." Buddha taught irreligion.

 

V

 

And yet you still cling to the beliefs of Buddhism, dharma, karma, and all the other "blessed" theology which you quote like biblical scripture. So I guess according to what you're saying it's not religion you are opposed to, or beliefs, but the wrong beliefs, which you apparently are privy too. I would suggest that perhaps you should examine your own beliefs first, before you start hashing about other people's beliefs.

 

Aaron

[xabir2005]

I don't have much interest in continuing a debate... And I think neither does he.

 

Just want to share this URL with vmarco as I think it is good for contemplation: http://www.joantollifson.com/writing1.html

Edited February 8, 2012 by xabir2005

[Informer]

My initiation into Buddhism in the early 70's was with Kagyu and Mahamudra, and understand Dzogchen is quite similiar. And yes, I fully agree that the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is uncovered in the Now, Present, or Instant. Nothing surpasses the Now. The 16th Karmapa correctly said that the mind of nowness is untouched by fixations on birth and liberation. It is unshaken by projections.

 

All the hoopla, and 84,000 aspects of teachings, are simply mind trainings to cultivate flashing out of alaya, and uncover the Present. Today, in this perceived time in duality, language and the conceptual understanding of physics makes explaining much more easier. For example, consider Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

That is pure Mahamudra.

 

Or how about this,...which I posted before,...Visualize a keyhole for a moment, one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, as in old Colonial and Victorian homes. Now, describe that hole. Some may say that it has the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle aligned on the bottom; others could respond that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate that is attached to the door, which is connected to the wall, etc. Perhaps the hole could be looked through, so one could remark about what is seen on the other side. However, none of that actually describes the hole; all of the preceding descriptions are narratives about what is around or can be seen through the hole. Nevertheless, that is how most sentient beings perceive their own wholeness: by what is around it.

 

There is no phenomena around the Present that somehow makes the Present the Present.

 

As Tilopa put it,..."The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed; By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises; Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals."

Foreget about intellectualizing on what is "clear light", as sentient beings attempt to do, like they define a hole by what's around it,...focus instead on letting go of the barriers we build against it being revealed.

 

Dzogchen can be one of the Direct Paths,...for others it can be as a religion to cling to for their identity.

 

"Know the state of pure and total presence to be a vast expanse without center or border." Longchenpa

 

The Present is absent any Center or Boundary, any One or Many, any I Am or Other Am, any Here or There.

 

V

 

Thanks for the reply. I wonder if you would indulge me a bit further with your probable insight into the matter of samsara.

 

Do you think one can be without suffering yet be with samsara? Instead of breaking it, only see it and utilize it?

 

I like this quote:

 

"'Know the state of pure and total presence to be a vast expanse without center or border.' Longchenpa"

 

I'm going to use it to make a sig, thanks.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Informer

[xabir2005]

My mistake,...I thought this Hinduism, that you consistantly mention in posts above, was a theistic religion.

 

Eckhart Tolle, in all the writings I read, is certainly a theist, and promotes theism. However, I look forward to his emancipation from such a meme.

 

If you had ever uncovered the Present, you would not only understand that no gods reside there, but that no theist can ever uncover the Present. As I mentioned, conditions cannot enter the unconditional. Thus a "blanket for theism" is quite appropriate.

 

As for faith in Buddhism,...you won't find any suggestion of that in my posts. On the contrary,..“Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.” Buddha taught irreligion.

 

V

I think one of the first things Eckhart said was about false notions of creator.

 

Your blanket labelling of theism on non-theist (including traditions like Advaita) is completely, utterly irrelevant.

 

In your ignorance you think Hinduism is theistic whereas in reality there is no such thing as a "Hinduism" because "Hinduism" is just a label given by the Islamic invaders for a large number of traditions that takes Vedas as authority but are extremely dissimilar in philosophy and doctrine, many contradicting each other. Theistic Hinduism is only one part of the religions - there are many non-theistic schools of Hinduism including but not limited to Advaita Vedanta. And this is something Seth Ananda already told you but you just failed to listen. Which makes me wonder why I bothered to repeat again...

Edited February 8, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Xabir and V Marco,

 

Will it help to point out now that neither of you will convince the other of your view or that you may be letting your egos pull you into a discussion that doesn't need to take place? I'm not sure why this whole "Exploring the Now" thing is even important, especially since it seems to be a baited topic meant to draw people in so that they can be told they're wrong.

 

Aaron

 

Actually, the politeness you demand from others would be better served if you read the previous posts before attacking. For example, post #19 says:

 

OK, to summarize,...as xabir has not experienced Presence, nor is interested in understanding from a Present point of view, he does not comprehend my posts,...and whereas VMarco has not taken the course in the Seven Stages of Thusness, V does not comprehend xabir's.

 

Thus, it was already mentioned that neither had the background to convince the other.

 

As for the importance of this topic,...what could be more important? This is the most important topic anyone can engage in. Of course for those like yourself, who give only a cursory glance at posts, sifting out a way to disagree, than yes,...you will get nothing from this most important topic.

 

For someone to suggest this topic is unimportant, they must believe the perceived now is the only now,...and all they need to understand.

 

For those committed to the inquiry of waking up however, they most certainly want to know as soon as possible if something they think is meaningful, may in fact be meaningless. Such a person is dedicated to the Direct or Short Path, and uncovering the absolute Present in this lifetime.

 

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative."

Shantideva 9.2