Growing Weary

[JustARandomPanda]

This thread is exhausting.

 

I will not post in it again. Too bad Thusness refuses to post at Taobums.

 

I'll just say a few things that pertain solely to the mindstream making this post.

 

1. There is this mindstream believing the Buddha in that there is such a thing as Right View.

 

2. There is further this mindstream believing that it can be "scientifically discovered" for one's self with practice.

 

3. There is this mindstream thinking the way "Right View" is taught at Taobums is...well not the way this mindstream would do it but whatever. It's all fungible. There is no I. There is no Others.

 

*shrug*

 

Someday this mindstream will get to realize it, not just Parrot the Buddha's teachings. This mindstream is a Parrot dreaming it's a Human Being.

 

I just hope there's also this mindstream remembering the Buddha taught skillfully. And that he didn't go around making Sentient Beings exhausted and weary of the Noble 8 Fold Path.

 

 

*sinks into the depths of lurkdom*

[Protector]

Nothing is taught at Taobums, even I keep secrets

These words cannot be the full extent of everyone's wisdom

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22142-no-more-excuses/

[xabir2005]

[Protector]

To make a better Earl Grey I threw into a pot orange peals, a strawberry, some jam, sugar for sweetness, and another tea bag since it's a big pot.

 

Didn't taste like Earl Grey anymore

[xabir2005]

This thread is exhausting.

 

I will not post in it again. Too bad Thusness refuses to post at Taobums.

 

I'll just say a few things that pertain solely to the mindstream making this post.

 

1. There is this mindstream believing the Buddha in that there is such a thing as Right View.

 

2. There is further this mindstream believing that it can be "scientifically discovered" for one's self with practice.

 

3. There is this mindstream thinking the way "Right View" is taught at Taobums is...well not the way this mindstream would do it but whatever. It's all fungible. There is no I. There is no Others.

 

*shrug*

 

Someday this mindstream will get to realize it, not just Parrot the Buddha's teachings. This mindstream is a Parrot dreaming it's a Human Being.

 

I just hope there's also this mindstream remembering the Buddha taught skillfully. And that he didn't go around making Sentient Beings exhausted and weary of the Noble 8 Fold Path.

 

 

*sinks into the depths of lurkdom*

Anatta or no-self is only one part of right view... Albeit an essential and vital part for liberation.

 

It so happens that there are many occasions for me to talk about it... I didn't wish to sound repetitive on this but it so happens that many times, it was being singled out or brought out for discussion.

 

When Buddha talks about right view, he also talks about things like karma, rebirth, four noble truths, dependent origination and so on.

[Marblehead]

 

Rob burbea:

 

"..But is there an assumption that simple means true? ...

 

Hi Xabir,

 

That reminded me of an event that has happened a few times in my life. On occasion a person will ask me to help them understand and do something they have yet to understand and do. So I sit down with them and 'show and tell' how to do what they wanted to do. Many times the response has been, "That was easy." My instant response is, "Most thing s in life are easy once you understand how to do them."

 

And so it is with philosohpy as well. Problem is that with philosophy there are no concrete objects to use as teaching tools. As with any philosophy the learner must have the experience before the confusion will be set to rest. I gave up on Buddhism because I could not set the confusion to rest because I never had the "experience".

 

For some minds simplicity is better than complex understandings.

[xabir2005]

Hi Xabir,

 

That reminded me of an event that has happened a few times in my life. On occasion a person will ask me to help them understand and do something they have yet to understand and do. So I sit down with them and 'show and tell' how to do what they wanted to do. Many times the response has been, "That was easy." My instant response is, "Most thing s in life are easy once you understand how to do them."

 

And so it is with philosohpy as well. Problem is that with philosophy there are no concrete objects to use as teaching tools. As with any philosophy the learner must have the experience before the confusion will be set to rest. I gave up on Buddhism because I could not set the confusion to rest because I never had the "experience".

 

For some minds simplicity is better than complex understandings.

Giving up is not a solution to confusion, it just means you ignore your confusion.

 

The only solution to confusion and ignorance is the arising of prajna wisdom. Before that, trying to grasp the correct teachings of Buddhism, and then practicing it, is vital. To do that you need good source of knowledge which often includes a wise teacher. Having so much already solves half your confusion. When wisdom arises - the realization-experience you talk about, all confusion ends.

[Marblehead]

Giving up is not a solution to confusion, it just means you ignore your confusion.

 

The only solution to confusion and ignorance is the arising of prajna wisdom. Before that, trying to grasp the correct teachings of Buddhism, and then practicing it, is vital. To do that you need good source of knowledge which often includes a wise teacher. Having so much already solves half your confusion. When wisdom arises - the realization-experience you talk about, all confusion ends.

 

You are right, of course.

 

But that is based on the precept that one "really" wants to be a Buddhist, or whatever.

 

How do we know the "really"? I have no idea. That all happens within each of us who are willing to question. Some people are able to just accept without the understanding and that is good enough for them.

 

Also too is the consideration that if one chooses a different path all ignorance and confusion is lost and wisdom is naturally attained.

 

We cannot be what we are not no matter how hard we try.

[xabir2005]

Understanding the situation of samsara will put one's mind on the path, or for a few ripe ones, enough to set them free (liberated).

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.013.than.html

 

SN 15.13 PTS: S ii 187 CDB i 658

Timsa Sutta: Thirty

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 2009–2012

Now on that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagaha, in the Bamboo Grove. Then thirty monks from Pava — all wilderness dwellers, all alms-goers, all triple-robe wearers, all still with fetters — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.

 

Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "These thirty monks from Pava... are all still with fetters. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma in such a way that in this very sitting their minds, through lack of clinging, would be released from fermentations?"

 

So he addressed the monks: "Monks."

 

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said, "From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?"

 

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the blood we have shed from having our heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans."

 

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

 

"This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans.

 

"The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

 

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

 

"The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

 

"Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations.

 

See also: SN 15.3.

 

...

 

Related suttas:

 

15. Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

SN 15.3: Assu Sutta — Tears {S ii 179; CDB i 652} [Thanissaro]. "Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time... or the water in the four great oceans?"

SN 15.9: Danda Sutta — The Stick {S ii 184; CDB i 656} [Thanissaro]. We bounce from one birth to the next, as a thrown stick bounces along the ground.

SN 15.11: Duggata Sutta — Fallen on Hard Times {S ii 186; CDB i 657} [Thanissaro]. When you encounter an unfortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.

SN 15.12: Sukhita Sutta — Happy {S ii 186; CDB i 658} [Thanissaro]. When you encounter a fortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.

SN 15.13: Timsa Sutta — Thirty {S ii 187; CDB i 658} [Thanissaro]. Which is greater, the blood you have shed in your long journey in samsara, or the water in the four great oceans?

SN 15.14-19: Mata Sutta — Mother {S ii 189; CDB i 659} [Thanissaro]. It's hard to meet someone who has not been, at some time in the distant past, your mother, father, son, daughter, sister, or brother.

Edited February 16, 2012 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

No, it has nothing to do with belief.

lol wrong!

I have seen, realized, how the view of self shapes perception and leads to clinging.

No you haven't. What you have seen is how Your view of self shapes perception and leads to clinging.

What you haven't considered is that some people may use the word 'Self' with a very different set of meanings, to what you mean when you say 'Self'.

 

I have seen how every clinging comes down to the view 'it is' (exists) or 'it is not'.

Sure, and I agree. But, this does not apply very well to the meaning of the word 'Self' as used by some Advaitins, albeit not many. Their Idea of Self, goes beyond the IAM, goes beyond the Void or nothingness you speak of, to something beyond concepts, beyond existence/non existence...

 

You have missed what I said earlier. Nisargadatta has went beyond I AM, but the Self they take is actually the nothingness - a source prior or beyond the I AM - which is nonetheless still a Self view.

But you have missed what I said earlier, that he also goes beyond the nothingness.

 

There is no realization of anatta being taught by them.

 

I am not so sure about that. The description of 'Self' they give leaves no possible thing to cling to, not a void, no sense of self, no beingness, no IAM, no anything you can name... It has no positive or negative or neutral qualities so what is there to cling to?

How can one grab something within all that and try to make it their permanent self, when the teachings are very clear that none of that is the Self?

 

I personally think you are hung up on words and their definitions.

 

When one decides to pick up Buddhisms 'view', to correct ones perception, one sees the view start to bear fruit.

But... In striving to see through all false taints of perception, one can get very over sensitive to anything that smacks of 'Self' language wise.

 

This is fine in a monastery or when solely surrounded by Buddhists, but when talking to others or Investigating other systems, we should try to avoid any Knee jerk reactions to the concepts of Self, and be really careful that we are talking about the same thing, and not two very different concepts hiding under the one word - Self.

[Mokona]

lol wrong!

 

No you haven't. What you have seen is how Your view of self shapes perception and leads to clinging.

What you haven't considered is that some people may use the word 'Self' with a very different set of meanings, to what you mean when you say 'Self'.

 

 

Sure, and I agree. But, this does not apply very well to the meaning of the word 'Self' as used by some Advaitins, albeit not many. Their Idea of Self, goes beyond the IAM, goes beyond the Void or nothingness you speak of, to something beyond concepts, beyond existence/non existence...

 

 

But you have missed what I said earlier, that he also goes beyond the nothingness.

 

 

 

I am not so sure about that. The description of 'Self' they give leaves no possible thing to cling to, not a void, no sense of self, no beingness, no IAM, no anything you can name... It has no positive or negative or neutral qualities so what is there to cling to?

How can one grab something within all that and try to make it their permanent self, when the teachings are very clear that none of that is the Self?

 

I personally think you are hung up on words and their definitions.

 

When one decides to pick up Buddhisms 'view', to correct ones perception, one sees the view start to bear fruit.

But... In striving to see through all false taints of perception, one can get very over sensitive to anything that smacks of 'Self' language wise.

 

This is fine in a monastery or when solely surrounded by Buddhists, but when talking to others or Investigating other systems, we should try to avoid any Knee jerk reactions to the concepts of Self, and be really careful that we are talking about the same thing, and not two very different concepts hiding under the one word - Self.

 

Instead of so often correcting misreadings and misunderstandings between each other, we should throw chi balls at each other, through Skype, until one passes out(the loser).

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mokona

[xabir2005]

No you haven't. What you have seen is how Your view of self shapes perception and leads to clinging.

What you haven't considered is that some people may use the word 'Self' with a very different set of meanings, to what you mean when you say 'Self'.

Since Self is agreed upon as truly existing, it leads to clinging.

 

My insight is that any clinging to 'It Is' or 'I Am' - the view of Existence, causes grasping.

Sure, and I agree. But, this does not apply very well to the meaning of the word 'Self' as used by some Advaitins, albeit not many. Their Idea of Self, goes beyond the IAM, goes beyond the Void or nothingness you speak of, to something beyond concepts, beyond existence/non existence...

Yes they always talk about Atman transcending the concepts of existence/non-existence, etc, but still there is 'Something' - some entity, some absolute, some ultimate reality, that is transcendental. That very positing of an entity, an absolute, an ultimate reality, itself is the view of existence, no matter how they want to say 'it' transcends concepts and so on.

 

Even at the I AM level you can already say it is non-conceptual. But non-conceptual does not mean you realize its emptiness.

 

As I said before:

 

...

Non-conceptuality does not mean non-attachment. For example when you realize the I AM, you cling to that pure non-conceptual beingness and consciousness as your true identity. You cling to that pure non-conceptual thought very tightly – you wish to abide in that purest state of presence 24/7. This clinging prevents us from experiencing Presence AS the Transience. This is a form of clinging to something non-conceptual. So know that going beyond concepts does not mean overcoming the view of inherency and its resultant clinging clinging. Even in the substantial non-dual phase, there is still clinging to a Source, a One Mind – even though experience is non-dual and non-conceptual. But when inherent view is dissolved, we see there is absolutely nothing we can cling to, and this is the beginning of Right View and the Path to Nirvana – the cessation of clinging and craving.

 

So as you can see, non-conceptual, even non-dual experience does not liberate - so we have to use the intellect to understand right view, and then investigate it in our experience. This is like a fire that in the end burns up the candle it is burning on, consuming itself in the process, leaving no trace even of itself. In other words, conceptual understanding of right view, coupled with investigative practice, results in true realization that dissolves concepts leaving non-conceptual wisdom - but without that process of investigating and trying to understand right view, merely remaining in a state of non-conceptuality isn't going to help you get free. People who fear engaging in thought, trying to understand the right view, challenging their views and understanding of things, are unfortunately going to stick with their own deluded framework of perceiving things...

 

 

I am not so sure about that. The description of 'Self' they give leaves no possible thing to cling to, not a void, no sense of self, no beingness, no IAM, no anything you can name... It has no positive or negative or neutral qualities so what is there to cling to?

Please quote.

 

As I have already showed you, Nisargadatta's description is precisely the Stage 3, and he treats it as Absolute, as an Ultimate Reality - though transcending the I AM and beingness.

 

How can one grab something within all that and try to make it their permanent self, when the teachings are very clear that none of that is the Self?

By claiming that which transcends those as Self, which is taking something - usually pure consciousness, pure awareness, or in Nisargadatta's case 'nothingness' - as an absolute, ultimate reality, true self.

I personally think you are hung up on words and their definitions.

No, it is a paradigm shift, not semantics or words. See if you haven't already: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

When one decides to pick up Buddhisms 'view', to correct ones perception, one sees the view start to bear fruit.

But... In striving to see through all false taints of perception, one can get very over sensitive to anything that smacks of 'Self' language wise.

If it were merely a matter of language, I would not have commented. But I just haven't seen them use true self in the way of emptiness and no-self. Obviously the 'true self' they point to is an absolute, ultimate reality. Edited February 17, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

hi, as I have said I am familiar with Nisargadatta's teachings having read hundreds of pages of them.

 

I am very clear what he teaches.

 

For example he said,

 

"In this spiritual hierarchy, from the grossest to the subtlest, you are the subtlest. How can this be realized? The very base is that you don’t know you are, and suddenly the feeling of ‘I amness’ appears. The moment it appears you see space, mental space; that subtle sky-like space, stabilize there. You are that. When you are able to stabilize in that space, you are space only. When this space-like identity ‘I am’ disappears, the space will also disappear, there is no space. When that space-like ‘I am’ goes into oblivion, that is the eternal state, ‘nirguna’, no form, no beingness. Actually, what did happen there? This message ‘I am’ was no message. Dealing with this aspect, I cannot talk much because there is no scope to put it in words."

 

Also he said,

 

"The ‘I am’ is absent only in the state of ‘samadhi’, when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the ‘I am’ is there, he just doesn’t give much importance to it. A ‘jnani’ is not guided by a concept."

 

This is the description of Stage 3, which as Thusness have said is the state where even beingness or consciousness enters oblivion.

 

When you realize Stage 4 and 5, I.e. Nondual and anatta, then there is no more hierarchy, no more making nothingness-prior-to-i-am as the purest state.

 

Whether I AM, nothingness, or sensate manifestation, all are equally pure. There is no purest absolute state. This is realized only when you see that always already, in seeing just the seen, no seer. Always already, there is no I, so there is no entry and exit, 'I am' identity is not only absent in samadhi state or a purest Absolute, but is already so in all manifestations.

 

And yes, Thusness too have said before that Nisargadatta is describing stage 3, and leads students to I AM first then to the nothingness.

One more quote: Most essential is that knowledge ‘I am’. Claim it, appropriate it as your own. If that is not there, nothing is. Knowledge of all stages will be obtained only with the aid of this knowledge ‘I am’ From the Absolute no-knowing state, spontaneously this consciousness ‘I am’ has appeared – no reason, no cause.

 

...

 

It is consciousness which must seek its source. Out of that no-being state comes the beingness. It comes as quietly as twilight, with just a feel of "I Am" and then suddenly the space is there.

 

This means there is an absolute purest state that precedes 'I am', and that spontaneously, without cause, 'I am' appears. This is ignorance of dependent origination... there is no causeless spontaneous arising, and no ultimate source or purest state preceding, prior to manifestation as its absolute source..

 

Nisargadatta, and others, teach the root sequence (all manners of existence from 'coarse' to 'subtle'), and that the subtlest - nothingness, or whatever you want to call it, is the true self and the absolute source of everything. That there is an absolute reality... and that things come forth from the Absolute.

 

In contrast, the Buddha teaches the root sequence in the very first sutta of the Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima Nikaya) but does not reify anything.

 

It was a teaching aimed at those students who held notions of a Brahman. Obviously, the 500 students didn't liked it at all, and it was the only sutra in the Pali Canon where the listeners didn't liked what Buddha said (as stated there). But commentaries state that at another sutta (latter time) can't remember which, when the put down their pride, the Buddha gave them another discourse in which 500 of them attained Arhantship.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

 

Second Sutra (Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence)

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

 

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you."

 

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

 

Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

 

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

 

The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school.

 

This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha.

 

Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.

 

However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.

 

If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.

 

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

 

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.

 

p.s. With due respects to Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is a venerable from the Theravadin tradition of Buddhism, his comments on "the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa" is not in accord with what is taught in the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, since in these traditions the Dharmakaya (dharma body)/Buddha Nature/Rigpa is explained as empty as well. It is however a common misunderstanding even among Buddhists.

 

Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates

 

As my friend who is an experienced Dzogchen practitioner, Vajrahridaya (who himself wrote a very good article on refuting Consciousness as 'Source' which I posted in ‘What makes Buddhism different’) said:

 

Ah, but this is not at all what Rigpa or Dharmakaya means. Rigpa is basically the consciousness of emptiness of dependent origination, so also originates dependently and is not some self supporting universal awareness. But since all aspects of the so called "universe" are inherently empty always, so Rigpa is always, only in as much as it is recognized.

 

p.s. Namdrol could clear this up, as he has access to untranslated Tibetan texts and could talk about what Rigpa means. He has said that it is not established as well. Rigpa is only inherent in the sense that all compounded things are inherently empty always. Just like the Buddhas first statement. "Mind and it's phenomena are luminous, uncompounded and free since beginningless time." Or something to that effect in maybe not that order. If someone has the quote?

 

And as Vajrahridaya pointed out:

 

One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...

We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.

 

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.

 

This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.

 

Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.

 

Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!

Edited February 17, 2012 by xabir2005

[Protector]

oh my gooooooooood... I finally get iiiiiiiiiit... you guys are NEEEEEEEEEEEERDS

[Mokona]

oh my gooooooooood... I finally get iiiiiiiiiit... you guys are NEEEEEEEEEEEERDS

Your comments can make an entire hour of my day brighten up.

 

 

How about they have a Horse-stance-stand-off?@!?!?!

[xabir2005]

oh my gooooooooood... I finally get iiiiiiiiiit... you guys are NEEEEEEEEEEEERDS

I visit http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/

 

[Protector]

While Buddhists are geeks, Taoists are obviously jocks

We do horse stance and Tai-chi stuff, and we have just one book to study

[xabir2005]

Depends. There are great awakened Buddhist masters who don't know much about scriptures... and those that do.

Edited February 17, 2012 by xabir2005

[Protector]

Depends. There are great awakened Buddhist masters who don't know much about scriptures... and those that do.

 

Sounds simple

[xabir2005]

To continue off from what I said.

 

There is nothing wrong with 'I AM' at all. It is that you need to realize that all manifestations are primordially pure and without self.

 

I AM is actually just a manifestation - it is not a ground, a subtratum, a source, a true self.

 

What is pointed to as 'I AM' is actually just a non-conceptual thought - felt as luminous, vivid, presence-existence, but only in the mind-realm. It is only one out of eighteen dhatus (six sense organs, six sense objects, six sense consciousness) .

 

When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

 

 

So...

 

The point is not that there is a state higher than I AM. The point is that there really is no self, always already no self, there is only manifestation, all manifestation arises due to dependent origination without an agent, perceiver, observer, controller, are self-luminous as they are, insubstantial, ephemeral, without an ultimate source or origin.

 

This is different from I AM insight (Thusness Stage 1~2), Thusness Stage 3 (nothingness) experience, nor is it substantial non-duality (Thusness Stage 4). It is not even merely no-mind experience which can be found in the Actualism teachings. It is radically different.

 

There is ONLY the process of knowing/manifestation... there is no unchanging Absolute, no unchanging Self, no metaphysical essence.

Edited February 17, 2012 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

There is ONLY the process of knowing/manifestation... there is no unchanging Absolute, no unchanging Self, no metaphysical essence.

Yes but there is also no no unchanging Absolute, no no unchanging Self, and no no metaphysical essence.

 

This is what I think you miss, being so conditioned by linguistic constructs describing Reality...

[Seth Ananda]

Since Self is agreed upon as truly existing, it leads to clinging.

 

My insight is that any clinging to 'It Is' or 'I Am' - the view of Existence, causes grasping.

 

I have an Experiment for you to try!

For one hour use the words 'the Self' to describe what you normally call ones 'Enlightened Nature'.

 

Imagine that that is what it really means, but be aware that others may use the word with a different meaning attached to it than you...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[Aaron]

I think this thread is an excellent example of the egos at work on this forum. The original poster left because people started to do the very thing she stated caused her to be weary. Where is the compassion in persisting to act in a way that offends or disturbs another person? I'm not claiming innocence here, since I certainly have an ego and on more than one occasion felt the need to defend my personal opinion, but one thing I'm beginning to understand more and more is that this need to defend myself stems from my desire to protect my ego, rather than a sincere desire to bring compassion, liberation, and an end of suffering in others.

 

The fact is that it's not really that difficult to behave compassionately, but many of us, either out of greed, anger, or whatever reason, choose not too. If we, including me, thought more about the consequences of our comments, rather than the "need" to say the things we do, I think that would go a long way towards learning to converse in a compassionate way with others.

 

Aaron

Edited February 18, 2012 by Twinner

[RyanO]

Yes but there is also no no unchanging Absolute, no no unchanging Self, and no no metaphysical essence.

 

Haha I like this

[xabir2005]

Yes but there is also no no unchanging Absolute, no no unchanging Self, and no no metaphysical essence.

There is no need to 'no' twice - since it is simply a non-asserting negation. I.e. it would be an unnecessary antidote to a nonexistent problem, since realization of anatta is not itself a position or the asserting of a new position, but merely the abandonment of a previous view or position of self through direct realization of the absence of a true existence (of self).

 

But yes, what you said is right.

This is what I think you miss, being so conditioned by linguistic constructs describing Reality...

No. This is what I have said many times before myself. Edited February 18, 2012 by xabir2005