goldisheavy

Valid point. The Tibetans claim there can only be one Buddha for a certain time period and they have predictions as to who will be the next Buddha. According to the Kagyu school, Tai Situ Rinpoche will be the next Buddha. This seems rather contrived and useful to keep the secret club afloat. I guess the rest of us low lifes will never be allowed such esteem.

I share this sentiment. This kind of politikin completely discredits the religion of Buddhism.

I am saying there is nothing indicative of an understanding or realization of anatta by the author. Neither is there an indication he or she understood the I AMness realization otherwise he would value the insight more instead of simply putting the notion down (he would not throw the baby out with the bathwater).

I asked if you could make a constructive comment, but you came up with another defensive and dismissive comment essentially stating the author of the page is stupid. What bothers me, besides the defensiveness, is that the language you use to dismiss the author of meaningness.com is that of Thusness. It's as if you're comparing what that page (meaningness.com) is saying to what Thusness says, and whenever it differs from what Thusness says, you reject it. If this is really what you are doing, you are in deep trouble.

That is not what I said or intended. The Buddha gave himself authority by virtue of his own realization which as you said was dependently originated which leaves according to your world view, no room for questioning. The above response is rhetorical nonsense.

According to Vajrahridaya enlightenment is completely impenetrable to ordinary beings. So if someone comes up to you and says "I am enlightened" and you ask some questions and receive answers you consider to be illogical, misleading, harmful and/or wrong for whatever other reason, you really don't have any grounds for saying, "no, I don't think you're a buddha" unless you too claim to be a buddha.

My problem with Vajrahridaya's view is that it's too extreme and simplistic. Ordinary beings never enter into the extreme of ordinariness. In other words, ordinary beings have a measure of wisdom available to them at all times. At the same time buddhas do not enter into the extreme of buddhahood. In other words, buddhas can get arbitrarily wise, but no matter how wise they get they all still have a measure of ignorance. This means the difference between buddhas and ordinary beings is not an extreme kind of difference, but Vajrahridaya's language portrays an extreme difference.

If you accept my view that ordinary beings do not differ from buddhas in the extreme, then it gives ordinary beings valid grounds to evaluate claims of buddhahood. If we accept Vajrahridaya's view, then ordinary beings can accept or reject the claims of buddhahood based only on blind faith and nothing else, since the gap in wisdom between the two types of beings is extreme.

I agree that mind holds the point of view and experiences. What else? It is not the only way to exist though.

Yes it is. Why? Because all ways of existing involve a point of view of some sort.

Mind exists through thinking

This is like saying that space exists through bottles.

Or it's like saying that the ocean exists through the waves.

Nope, not at all. You are once again deciphering from your own personal field of meanings and projecting onto my statements something other than I intended, based upon the the fact that you have erroneously authorized yourself to do so.

Can I be an authority on the subject and yet be in error on that same subject? If yes, then authority is meaningless. If not, then it makes no sense for you to say that my authority with regard to my own actions is erroneous.

that site has no idea what the realization of anatta is like. For example anatta is not nihilism, those realizing anatta do not neglect personal affairs, has nothing to do with getting rid of 'regular self', and also understands continuity in terms of continuity of process instead of total discontinuity. In other words our traits are being reborn and sustained as a process and do not imply a soul, therefore no contradictions.

Hmm... that's a pretty defensive reply. Your sole concern and focus in the quoted post is to defend the "no self" idea. Is that all you have to say?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of him, he's still an authority regardless and he was aware of this, while being free from it at the same time. Which is what is required of being an authority in Buddhism.

So being an authority is not a matter of convention according to you. This means anyone has a right to claim to be an authority because it's a matter of one's inner conviction and nothing else. This is not a conventional understanding of what authority means.

You internalize the concept differently than I do. You have a mental dogma surrounding the term.

I am simply using a conventionally accepted meaning of authority. And so should you. You should not be using your own private definition of authority in a public discussion.

You are head strong. I only agree that I should have unpacked the meaning I intended for the statement as I'm doing now. Internally it does not take nearly as long to do so. One can write endlessly about a single moments occurrence within the mind of a being.

So when you don't want to admit you said something stupid, it is me who is being head strong?

Both can be a criteria for the term. He can be considered an authority due to the fact that he is one to himself even if no one recognizes it, such is the case with pratyekabuddhas. But no one will recognize his/her authority over themselves due to the fact that he/she is not an authority in the powers of communicating the realization. Shakyamuni Buddha is not so crippled by such a limitation being a samyakasambuddha, or wheel turning Buddha he was able to help people realize that he was indeed an authority in helping people recognize their own powers of authority over the tendency for self clinging.

You are saying that ultimately all authority is purely internal. In other words a solitary Buddha has the same authority as the wheel turning Buddha with the only difference that the wheel turning Buddha has more groupies. Or in other words, all Buddhas have the same authority, but some are more ornamented than others. Or to say the same thing in yet other words, all Buddhas have the same authority even if the sizes of their retinues differ. Is that what you are saying?

It's all dependently originated. The Buddhas authority on liberation arises dependent upon the fact of his liberation and his authority on communicating the methods which help people to the very same state of liberation arise dependent upon the fact that he was able to help people recognize liberation for themselves and they would agree from within themselves that he indeed is an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views.

So Buddha's authority on communicating the methods depends on other people's capacities. But Buddha's authority on liberation depends only on Buddha feeling like he or she is liberated. This means whoever claims to be Buddha always has an easy out if the students fail to achieve results, because the Buddha can always blame the student for not being good enough.

So if I understand all this correctly, it implies this world is full of Buddhas as far as any non-Buddhas can know. All that one needs to be a Buddha as far as others (non-Buddhas) are concerned is to simply claim to be one. If other people fail to receive one's teachings favorably one can always blame those people. That's the logical implication of what you are telling me here.

But, he is an authority no matter what others say about him or think about him, as plenty of people reject him due to the power of their own delusions.

Would Buddha be an authority to you if you thought poorly of him? I think the answer is no, he wouldn't be. What if everyone in the world thought poorly of Buddha? That is a possible scenario. There are some realms where this is the case. Would Buddha still be considered an authority in those realms?

I promote the Buddha and the Buddha asked that people not accept his words on his authority and really make their mind up themselves through delving into the meanings of their own experiences and realizations.

You don't just promote the Buddha. You promote the idea of authority in a more general sense with all the ugly downsides of that idea. Buddha himself warned people not to rely on any authorities, but instead Buddha asked people to see things for themselves. So by promoting the validity of authority in a general sense you are actually going against the wishes of the Buddha.

Nope, not at all, that is your interpretation of my words and not my intention, that's not the make up I had in my mind when stating that, and if you contextualized that statement within reference of the entire body it appeared in, you would be able to see that I mean an authority when it comes to being a Buddha as he is actually only an authority on the fact of liberation due to being liberated.

Nope. That statement is so simple and solid in meaning that no additional context would change its meaning. You should just admit you had a brain fart when you made that statement.

Let's investigate this further. If you truly believe that the phenomenon of authority is something that is dependently arisen, then tell me, depending on what do people consider someone an authority? Or if being an authority is not dependent on people's considerations, then depending on what is someone an authority? Please pick either the latter or the former question and try to answer it.

Ah well... people will always have regrets, and someone who didn't have the 5 selected by the nurse would probably regret something else... besides, the nurse may have selected, consciously or not, what SHE regrets -- who knows which regrets she didn't relate to she ignored and didn't include?..

It sounds like you don't trust the nurse to report her observations faithfully. It's possible her report is biased. It does ring true to me though. I think it is spot on.

I can very well imagine a different scenario... don't we all wish for a "control group of me" to test a different life on?..

 

So maybe

 

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me

 

would, for someone who actually did, as many actually do, turn into an altogether different kind of regret:

 

1. I wish I'd been less selfish and did more for others, not just for myself -- so I wouldn't be alone all my life and especially now, and didn't feel like such a useless self-centered jerk and didn't despise myself.

I think this is largely the same thing because most people are not selfish. So for most people being true to oneself already implies being compassionate to others because most of us have a social (rather than anti-social) view of who we are.

2. I wish I didn't work so hard.

 

This could turn into

 

2. I wish I worked harder on what matters and didn't work at all on things like updating my car to keep up with the Johnses, or maintaining a sterile toilet bowl and then paying the manicurist to work on my cuticles.

Had you read the linked page you would have realized you're talking about exactly the same thing.

3. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings

 

may become

 

3. I wish I had feelings strong enough to give me courage to do the right thing, instead of living a cowardly life, never feeling strong enough about anything to make a difference.

Interesting point, but this is very much what #1, being more true to oneself, is all about too.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends

 

may turn into

 

4. I wish I had found new friends when me and my old friends had grown so different that we fell away from each other naturally. I have nothing in common now with Tom who has become a conceited prick incessantly boasting about his stupid career, his money, and his assorted trophies, nor with Mary whose current interests all congregate around her bottle of booze. Why didn't I seek out people with whom I have common interests, and mutual respect and warmth, and whom I could trust, for new friends? People who would be more like who I am today, instead of alien to me and only considered friends because I happened to go to school with them or lived next door or with whom I could "do things together" as long as those "things" provided distractions to dissipate boredom and a sense of meaninglessness of our relationship?..

Interesting point.

And finally,

 

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier

 

may go along the lines of what Confucius, who was, by all accounts, happy enough, regretted on his deathbed:

 

5. I wish I had another 50 years to dedicate to the study of the I Ching.

This thing here is a dodge. You should read what the linked page says about 5 and see if you can come up with a more relevant reply. #5 in the linked page reveals that people who are near death often realize happiness is a choice. In other words, these people realized that they can choose to be happy in a wider array of circumstances than they previously thought possible. To be relevant your retort needs to somehow address that crucial aspect. As it stands, it sounds contrived, like you are grasping at straws.

Pulled completely out of context, meanwhile donning it like an authority figure yourself.

 

I was speaking about those that are actually authorities on spiritual matters due to depth of experience and insight into the nature of things, and not just appointed political figures, which is how you took it... out of context to seem like.

 

You consider the term Authority a bad word. You have an emotional cringing when it comes to this word. You should work through that subjective attachment within your field of meanings. Maybe on your next post you will do so.

 

The Buddha is an Authority, my Rinpoche is an Authority, the Dalai Lama is an Authority and they've Authored many texts concerning spirituality and the methods for attaining ever deepening states of wisdom. They are true friends of society.

The word is not the problem. The problem is what the word "authority" refers to and how it plays out in life.

You say that authorities are true friends of society. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. To be a friend of society one must be a friend of every single individual. So if Buddha is a friend of society, it's only because Buddha is my friend. If Buddha is not my friend, he's not a friend of society because he is rejecting at least one person who is a member of society.

Now I ask: Assuming Buddha is both my friend and an authority, is Buddha my friend because he's an authority, or is Buddha an authority because he is my friend? In other words, what is more fundamental? Is friendship more fundamental than authority? Or is authority more fundamental than friendship? Does authority build on top of friendship? Or does friendship build on top of authority?

I believe friendship is more fundamental than authority. If I don't consider someone to be my friend, that someone ceases to be an authority for me, and by extension society.

What does authority imply in the context we are discussing? To me authority implies the ability to say things without being questioned. Is there anything that should be accepted without question? My answer is no. Is there any person whom we should listen to uncritically? No, there is no such person. Even Buddha said the same thing to Kalamas, but many so-called "authorities" were not so kind. In fact Mohammed, the Islamic "authority," has declared himself to be the last prophet, the last and final authority. This is why authority is immoral and bad. No one who claims to be an authority is a friend of society. People who promote others as authorities are not friends of society either.

Suggesting to people that there is a class of knowledge or a person who is not to be questioned is promoting ignorance. Anyone who promotes ignorance is an enemy of society.

Look at all the meanings embodied in the word "authority": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

In our context out of all the meanings the least ugly meaning is 7, which says that an authority is an expert on a subject. What makes one an expert? If I say I am an expert, does that mean I am? If 1000 of my friends and I all say I am an expert, does that mean I am? Or is every person free to decide who is and who is not an expert? And how about a situation where two experts in the same subject disagree with each other?

Finally, what makes the quote in my signature crazy and deliciously ironic is your, Vajrahridaya's denial of dependent origination. The quote basically says that authority stems from itself. It says that someone is an authority inherently instead of dependent on causes and conditions. You keep harping and harping and harping about dependent origination and then you say that authority is exempt from dependent origination.

I appreciate the Vaj perspective on some matters

 

I see it as a learning experience, and insight to alternative perspective.

I actually appreciate a lot of things Vajrahridaya writes about. It's just that he has some tendencies related to religious affiliation and religious identity that I don't appreciate. If Vajrahridaya could simply forget what religion he's from when he's on this board, and just talk about what he finds to be meaningful and true without mentioning his club, and without reminding people that they're not getting everything they can out of life until they join his club, that would be perfect for my taste.

The quote in my signature is a reminder that sometimes Vajrahridaya says some really crazy things though.

Semper Vigilare

Jumping in here:

 

I see no logical inconsistency in SIME's position. If "my life" is only true when I am alive, then it's silly to talk about "what my life would be like without me". Likewise, if "mind" is only true when there are thoughts (which is what she experiences), then what's the point of talking about "mind without thoughts"?

It is wrong to say that mind is only true when there are thoughts. You can sit in meditation without thoughts but you don't become mindless when you do that. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see.

GIH, when you say that "mind is a context", are you not just describing a non-place with an unnecessary word? "Brain" is the context for thought;

Brain is not the context for thought. It is part of the context at certain times.

we know the brain exists because of anatomy. Why do you also need "mind"? What does this extra concept buy you? Calling it a context is just putting a word there, and saying "now I understand", like saying "God is the context for reality". But it's just a word, an added layer of concept, not a description of something useful.

Basically you are saying that physicalism offers an adequate account of life. I am saying physicalism is a joke, a really stupid doctrine which offers a deluded faith-based myth more so than a useful account of life. I don't want to get into the details here because discussing the drawbacks of physicalism is commonplace in Buddhist literature and I don't feel any desire at the moment to go over something for the 100th time, something that is talked about in-depth in many writings available to you. It's enough for me to just show you the general direction if you're interested. If you're not interested, that's fine too. Just know that you can't really understand what I am saying from a physicalist POV.

You ask: where does the experience take place, that is separate from thought? Well, that begs the question of "where is mind"? You still don't need mind, because both experiences (thought and non-thought) happen in the brain.

Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?

I'm just scratching the surface here.

I don't follow your argument about liberation. Why is "mind" necessary for liberation? IMO, liberation is all about surrendering habit and panic, which are mostly subconscious forces. What good does the concept "mind" do you?

 

You write: "I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality." But what reality are you talking about? I don't see any minds, when I look around at "reality". I see people, who presumably have brains.

 

"Mind" is just a metaphor for how we talk about our inner experiences; that doesn't make it a "real" thing.

Mind is real in the sense that the meanings are real. Do you consider meanings to be real?

Aren't you being a little sensitive and paranoid? You came on this forum a little over 2 years ago and 5000+ posts later, you have extolled the virtues of the superiority of Buddhism ad infinitum. Would you like to be classified in the same category as the religious fundies in the U.S.? The Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin types?

 

Never do you mention the "heart mind" aspect of Buddhism, except when you use ( ) this particular emoticon. With your dharma buddies here.

It's worse than that. Not only does Vajrahridaya extoll the virtues of Buddhism, but he also goes around putting people down not for being foolish, but purely for being outside the formal Buddhist fold. He also invites people he thinks are "good" to take Buddhist initiations and vows. This has been my experience personally.

I don't recall Vaj ever taking any issue with anything I say when it comes to how I view phenomena and on many issues that are considered of critical importance in various Buddhist traditions. So for the most part he agrees with the non-religious stuff I have to say. At the same time he still attempted to put me down numerous times. Why? Well, the only reason is purely political -- it's because I oppose organized religion for one, and because I oppose secret clubs two, and three because I am not submissive humble enough for Vaj's foolish idea of humility. What's truly mind-blowing is that while he tried to put me down, he also invited me more than once to become a Buddhist. It's sort of like telling the person how poorly dressed one is, and then inviting that same person to shop at your clothing store right in the same breath. It's a very...how shall I say it...unclean tactic. Very manipulative, arrogant, presumptuous and selfish.

I am grateful for all the teachings Buddhists have decided to openly share. But I am not grateful for attempts at manipulation, authoritarian control, and dogmatic indoctrination. I am also not grateful for the tribalistic, clannish, cliquish, cultish nature of the Buddhist secret clubs.

I was not making a clear point. That point was meant for Vajraji who believes that to be so. Given that he believes that Buddhism is the only container of wisdom. The darkness aspect that is referred to is the time when the Buddhist dharma is unknown, However, that does not mean that wisdom in unavailable.

Yea, it's pretty obvious when I read your other posts in this thread. I completely agree with your view of religion.

Several points in this discussion stand out. The world would be in utter darkness without Buddhism and religion.

I don't believe this. It's like saying that if Microsoft didn't exist we would have no personal computers now. It's not true. Maybe personal computers wouldn't be as popular without Microsoft. Or maybe they would be even more popular and even more advanced. It's hard to say if Microsoft helped the evolution of computers or hindered it.

Saying that without Buddhism we would be in darkness means that you cannot imagine something that's either equivalent or wiser than Buddhism. I can, so this isn't true for me. I can imagine infinite possible religions that are at least as wise as Buddhism and that are not exactly like Buddhism, but have a distinct character and style to them.

The best teachings in Buddhism have an anti-dogmatic quality to them. At the same time, Buddhism has a lot of dogma and cultural baggage. So the best of Buddhism is at odds with the worst of it. To think only of what's the best in Buddhism is to be blind.

Religion in general has been much more harmful than helpful to humankind. It's just a lucky fluke that Buddhism has some good elements in it that cancel out the bad elements, and the bad elements in Buddhism are not that bad compared to the bad elements of Islam, for example.

Whatever is truly wise and beautiful stands apart from religion. Religious movements immorally try to appropriate and monopolize something they have absolutely no right to. For this I have condemned all religions, including Buddhism. This is why eventually religions will become marginalized in this mindstream. That is my vow. It's not a new vow I just made either. It's been my vow for a long time. My vow opposes dogma because dogma is inflexible and thus dead to life. My vow opposes ownership of truth because ownership has the negative qualities of excluding beings and of despotic and arbitrary control. Ownership in general is bittersweet at best, but when it comes to truth and wisdom, attempts to own truth and wisdom are downright devastating and disastrous.

Whatever I say here is never in the spirit of me owning or monopolizing anything I talk about. I demand the same from everyone, and this means religions are taking a hit, because the vast majority of religious leaders fail to live up to the moral standard I am talking about here.

Everyone who likes to stress the idea of selflessness or "no self" as the truth, check out this chart:

http://meaningness.com/self-schematic-overview

I think it's a very useful chart and I think it makes at least some observations worth paying attention to. The column for "no self" is the one in the middle.

What I like about the above chart is that it shows a balanced and in my opinion surprisingly honest view that notes both negative and positive aspects of eternalistic true self and nihilistic no self, and shows how both of these views deviate from how life really is when you examine what happens in life honestly.

Buddhists tend to focus on only the negative aspects of the "true self" idea, and only on the positive aspects of the "no self" idea. The chart shows that "true self" idea has some surprising merit, and that "no self" idea has some surprising demerit. It's surprising to most dogmatic Buddhists anyway. It may not be surprising to everyone.

Both the eternalistic "true self" and the nihilistic "no self" ideas are simplifications, caricatures of reality, but as caricatures, they both have some merits and they both have some demerits. This is the kind of honesty we need to make progress toward wisdom.

Now, if it were not for Master Nan and his commentary on other Buddhist Sutras/Suttas I would not understand the great significance of what Master Hua is doing here. Apparently, if one cultivates deeply enough one will become aware of a special Vow Form Realm. Vows are important! Very important. When you make a vow a special form realm comes into being and will have certain effects on you. No one will achieve Buddhahood who is not capable of making and keeping vows. And making cavalier vows (and breaking them) is something preferably avoided if possible.

The essence of what you are saying is twofold:

1. Resolve matters. When you make a serious vow, you are demonstrating (mostly to yourself) the strength, the depth, the sincerity, and the tenacity of your resolve. It is a way for you to convince yourself beyond doubt that you are truly serious, that your resolve is diamond-like. It's also a way to give your dream a more concrete shape.

2. It's the nature of mind to manifest whatever you resolve on.

Buddhism is not the only system of thought that teaches this kind of wisdom. Hindus teach the same thing, for example. I am sure others teach a similar set of ideas.

But if traditional Buddhism disappears - this kind of wisdom will also disappear.

Wisdom will never completely disappear. Wisdom can be difficult to recognize, but it's never completely absent. Enjoy the wisdom you find in Buddhism and make the most of it, because Buddhism is not going to last forever.

Knowing that this human life does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in this life.

Knowing that Buddhism does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in Buddhism.

It is the nature of all things to change. At some point things change beyond recognition. That's only natural. All things are cyclic. There is nothing to fear and there is nothing to hang on to. Or let me put it this way, if you want to hang on to Buddhism, make all the best that's in it emblazoned on your heart and share without reservation.

But be vigilant. Not everything in Buddhism is great. You'll never learn anything of significance if all you do is emulate, copy and follow. Do some of your own thinking and feel free to question everything.

Should I also go hunting for all my erroneous beliefs?

I like this question a great deal and I think it's very important. My personal answer to it is that basically, no, you don't go hunting for all your erroneous beliefs. That's not going to work. What I believe one should do is cultivate 24/7 mindfulness (an opposite quality would be mindlessness, absentmindedness, roboticness and zombieness), and then live life with a presence of mind. Then when a pain point arises, see into it very deeply right then and there! Right then and there you should see what's happening. You should see what is the nature of the pain, why it hurts, what beliefs support the pain and so on.

You may not see all of the details and supporting context right away, but you'll see quite a bit right away if you make mindfulness a habit. Then when you have a chance, you can bring up a recent pain point in meditation. You can bring it up in your mind's eye, relive the pain one more time, and as you relive the painful even in meditation, you can gain a lot more insight into it, including at least some of the core beliefs that contextualize it. You may not discover everything right away, but you should find enough to make the practice useful. As the painful event becomes more and more of a distant memory, it becomes less valuable for this kind of practice. This practice works best with relatively recent, fresh events, or with anxieties and concerns that always exist as a kind of psychological undercurrent at all times (if this is true for you). Of course if you are profoundly relaxed most of the time, you won't have an undercurrent of anxiety, and there is no need to invent problems if they aren't there.

Or wait quietly and pounce on them when I see them show up and cause me or others harm in the face of reality? Sometimes I don't think they're all (the beliefs) going to show up at once because there's nothing real for them to break against.

Exactly. Well said! Deep beliefs are not necessarily obvious until life circumstances or other beliefs contradict them in some significant (and often painful) way.

Besides, I went through a real period of 'shit hitting the fan' with this stuff so I'm quite glad for the break :-)

Breaks are important and so are naps.

From a nurse who worked for many years in palliative care, whose patients had gone home to die

 

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I didn’t work so hard.

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

 

http://longtermtips.tumblr.com/post/6138846847/top-5-regrets-people-make-on-their-deathbed

 

This was a little wakeup call for me so thought I would share. I'm surprised by how much freedom and choice people felt the had in their lives over such issues like letting themselves be happy and courage to be their expressive selves, makes me think maybe I have far more choice over such things than I realise.

This is huge. Thanks for bringing this up.

EDIT: I read the linked article and it's even better than the summary Jetsun posted. I encourage everyone to click on the link and read the whole thing.

The nature of the enlightened mind, the embodiment of all is: (by Longchen Rabjam)

 

Not clarity, as it transcends all the phenomena of clarity,

Not emptiness, as it transcends all the phenomena of emptiness,

Not existence, as there are no inherent things and characteristics,

Not non-existence, as it pervades all of Samsara and Nirvana,

primordial ultimate sphere, spontaneous equalness;

Not partiality, bias, foundation, root, or things,

And no discontinuity. So it is, the expanse of enlightened

Intrinsic Awareness.

I like it.

The lack of understanding? Uh, in the discussion we're having?

 

Or do you want me to say the mind? In that case, it's located in a conventionally existent mind.

What would a discussion that didn't lack understanding be like?

Not both, not neither..

What did I forget? Myself?

 

Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well.

 

There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

Where is this lack you speak of?

At the relative level, pre-analysis, there is obviously a distinction. Yes. But post-analysis, there is neither him nor you nor no him nor no you.

You didn't finish your analysis yet.

A self that can be stable or unstable, can it be found anywhere?

It depends on what you look for. When you try to find yourself, what are you looking for?

Relative labels like 'I am xabir' is fine. But like the word 'weather' does not refer to a findable entity but a process, same applies to 'self' which is simply an empty label for an ungraspable process.

It's graspable if you don't grasp too tightly. Don't you see, that's the whole trick? People grasp identities because the grasp in a medium strength grip. At the same time, people make too many simplifications and their imaginations are impoverished. The sage sees this and the suffering it causes. How can we help? Well, there are tricks. Basically there are some lies we can tell people to free them. One lie is this: if you think you can grasp something, just grasp it as hard as you can! What happens? Well, when the person tries to grasp things way too hard, he or she gets exhausted and the fist naturally becomes limp after some time. So it's a way to get the person to leg go by lying and tricking the person. Of course if the person was not tricked into grasping way too hard, if the person continued a medium-strength grasp, the grasp would continue indefinitely.

As soon as you trick the person into loosening the hand, another disease starts. This new disease means the person now thinks nothing whatsoever can ever be held. So now you have to teach the person how to pick up objects and hold them. So you have to basically re-teach the same thing you tricked the person out of in the first place.

So what is the point of all this? The point is to eventually show the person that the hand is capable of this entire range of ability. Range is the key word. Grasping and non-grasping both fall within the range of ability. Neither ability is absolute. Grasping is not absolute. Non-grasping is also not absolute. Non-grasping only makes sense in contrast with grasping. The reason we can talk about non-grasping is because grasping is as real as non-grasping.

You may argue there are certain traits that define a person. But this is not an argument as there are certain traits that define cars, but no car essence can be found inside or outside its constituents.

 

You can apply antidotes but when realization of anatta arises, one naturally is free from all extremes and will not err to any side. Otherwise it is an endless process of neti neti without end to the loop.

When I type this post, are you typing my post? No, you are not. When you type your post, am I typing it? No I am not. There is an obvious distinction between you and me. You need to face the truth of this. Don't run from it.

For me it is simple.Mind is some thoughts put together of thoughts if there is no thoughts there is no mind.

I realize this. I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality. It's like saying that space is whatever is inside the bottle. As soon as you discard all the bottles, all the space is gone. That's a very limited conception of what a space is. You limit what a mind is in a very similar way.

That place might be called Nature or God ,but it also includes the individual mind, it is not seperate .So no stepping out ,just fine tunning and changing the point of view.

Mind is what holds and experiences the point of view. By thinking of mind and Nature or God as distinct and different things you create a difficulty for yourself.