xabir2005

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    2,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About xabir2005

  • Rank
    Dao Bum

Recent Profile Visitors

9,832 profile views
  1. Favourite Buddhist Books

    I second the recommendation on Measureless Mind -- really good presentation of Buddha's teachings backed up by scriptures. http://measurelessmind.ca/ Another good book is What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada by Venerable Walpola Rahula http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313
  2. Intensity of luminosity does not mean that everything is real (as in truly existing). Something Thusness wrote: John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up. This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who. In hearing, it's that "sound". In seeing, it's that "scenery". In thinking, it is that "eureka"! In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping". Just marvelous such as it is on the fly. So no "it" but thoroughly empty. To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory. I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him. Nice chat And happy journey jax! Gone! December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10
  3. what is the sound of one hand

    Something I wrote in 2011: The Sound of One Hand Clapping Shhh.... listen! The sound of one hand clapping is the whole universe listening. If you cannot hear the sound of one hand clap, fret not. The bird chirping knows... chirp chirp... one hand claps. Music enjoys music... scenery delights scenery... scenery sceneries scenery. One hand claps... universe listens.
  4. How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

    In my experience of what is called hypnogogic states, thoughts do not remain verbal or vague but projects into hyper-real sights and sounds that are as real or even more vivid than waking reality, the sights and sounds are crystal clear and if you think about a place you'll be there and sometimes if you think about a song you'll just hear the whole song with its lyrics sung so clearly and you wonder why do you remember the lyrics better in sleep than in waking. It is probably in such states that the practice of visualization in many spiritual traditions succeeds.
  5. How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

    I've experienced bright lights as well. It's related to what Daniel Ingram describes in http://integrateddaniel.info/the-arising-and-passing-away/
  6. No creator in Buddhism?

    Also from one of my e-book journals: 3rd October 2012 Thusness told me that the stream of wisdom will penetrate into the three states eventually, many years ago. For example if you keep chanting something, or if you keep playing computer games, then in the dream these things will appear. Likewise when you get acquinted with wisdom, this appears into dream and deep sleep as well. This is the flow of dependent origination – ignorance flows, wisdom also flows. This is another dream that Thusness told me to wrote down. It happened last night. In my dream, I was contemplating something that the Buddha said: 531 "Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self.[11] When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being." (MN11: Cula-sihanada Sutta) As I contemplated this in my dream, I saw how when there is craving, when there is agitation, when there is clinging, I could project consciousness out of my body into another place, into the sky, into another realm, into another lifetime. I saw that this is how rebirth works - craving drives the entire process of becoming! And then I stopped this craving-conceiving-projecting, and I was back where I was - on my bed. But I am still sleeping. And I instantly entered into this incredible bliss again (this happened a few times so far) - it was sooo blissful like the last time. But this time, it lasted much longer. I can feel my entire being, even my face, is of this intense blissful vibration. After some time which felt longer than the last time (it was quite long and I began to wonder how long it will last), then as thoughts arise, the bliss begin to lessen until I woke up from the blissful sleep samadhi. May all beings put an end to becoming and attain the highest bliss of Nirvana. p.s. THIS is well said ---> 29. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’ 30. “‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? 31. “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and is not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated? 532 32. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements.” (Buddha, MN 140 Dhātuvibhanga Sutta)
  7. No creator in Buddhism?

    If you are doing Self-Inquiry, there will come a time when there is no thoughts, no sense of anything... except Beingness, Presence itself, I think that is what you mean by You/Projector/etc. That Existence which is its own Knowing as it is non-dual. It is the very core of Being as Presence-Awareness. This I AMness is a transcendental experiential realization where consciousness is directly perceived as a pure sense of Existence. It is beingness, consciousness, bliss. The experience is intuitive and beyond the realm of thought. It is a non-dual and precious experience of pure consciousness, however its nature will quickly be misunderstood resulting in reification. Nevertheless it is an important realization. When you have realized it, there is 100% no more doubts about what you are, you will find that you have realized the very fact of your own Existence with utter certainty. Anyway this is the kind of realization that many teachers including Eckhart Tolle is pointing to. There will also come a time when during sleep it becomes incredible an unimaginable bliss-presence which is non-dual. This can occur in dreamless sleep and in dream states, even in sleep paralysis (which will dissolve all fear into total non-dual transparency, presence/clarity and bliss)... from experience it will happen but let it come naturally as a result of maturing wisdom, there is no need (at least in my case) to intentionally bring it about. p.s. your experiences with body, life-force, etc are good
  8. No creator in Buddhism?

    Actually this is good but there must be complete certainty of that I - that pure sense of existence. Is there is just a glimpse/experience without certainty or is there complete certainty? This relates to what Thusness told me in 2009 when I had glimpses and experiences but not yet realization (for me Self-Realization occurred in Feb 2010): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html Excerpt: 1. On Experience and Realization One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence. So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views". Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom.
  9. No creator in Buddhism?

    To people like Dogen, Impermanence is Buddha-nature, but this Impermanence is not the kind of gross impermanence that many people understand, it is the subtle impermanence that includes the factoring in of non-dual Presence or Mind. He reiterates the Ch'an Patriarch Hui-neng in saying that 'Buddha-Nature is Impermanence'. This should become very clear after anatta realization. ......... http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=H6A674nlkVEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21 From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen Question Ten: Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages. "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?" What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs? Answer 10: You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma. According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy. But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it. I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma. Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not? You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking. Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature. In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views. ......... Also, Zen Master Steve Hagen: .....What Nagarjuna is pointing to is that believing things are impermanent involves a contradiction. First we posit separate, persisting things (in effect, absolute objects); and then we refer to them as impermanent (that is relative). What we fail to see is that we are still holding to a view of substance. We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness. We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness. Nagarjuna makes it abundantly clear that impermanence (the relative) is total, complete, thoroughgoing, Absolute. It's not that the universe is made up of innumerable objects in flux. There's Only flux. Nothing is (or can be) riding along in the flux, like a cork in a stream; nothing actually arises or passes away. There's only stream. ..... That forms appear to come and go cannot be denied. But to assume the existence of imaginary persisting entities and attach them to these apparent comings and goings is delusion.... .... Ch'an Master Sheng Yen: When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the "I" does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognize that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena. . . . One who has entered Chan (Zen) does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth. ........... Thusness: Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own. .... Buddhism Plain and Simple page 115, by Zen Teacher Steve Hagen: With the two types of views there are two kinds of minds. As human beings, we all have what we could call ordinary minds - the mind that you've always assumed you've had. It's a calculating mind, a discriminating mind, a fragmented mind. It's the mind of ordinary consciousness, the mind of self and other. We generally think of it as "my mind." But there's another mind that is unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned. Unlike "your mind," it is unbound, for there is nothing beyond it. To this Mind, there is no "other mind." This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself - the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events. Speaking of this Mind, the great Chinese Zen master Huang Po said, All buddhas and ordinary people are just One Mind... This Mind is beyond all measurements, names, oppositions: this very being is It; as soon as you stir your mind you turn away from It. This Mind is self-evident - it's always switched on, so to speak. We can - and, in fact, we do - see It in every moment. If we would refrain from stirring our minds (rest our frontal lobes, as my Zen teacher used to say) and let our conceptualising die down, like the ripples on a pond after the stirring wind has ceased, we would realise - we would know Mind directly. (Ste ve Hagen) . . . Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, is direct perception. And what is directly perceived (as opposed to conceive) is that no separate, individualised things exist as such. There's nothing to be experienced but this seamless, thoroughgoing relativity and flux. In other words, there are no particulars, but only thus.
  10. No creator in Buddhism?

    Nice quotes. Here's another one you often quote: Within self-emergent primordial gnosis, there are no objects to be experienced, There is nothing which has previously passed away, Nor anything which will subsequently emerge, Nor anything at all which currently appears. There is no karma, There are no latent karmic propensities, There is no dimmed awareness, There is no mind, There is no psyche, There is no insight, There is no cyclic existence, And there is no transcendence of misery - It is not the case that even awareness itself exists. There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis. - excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret (Absence Of Letters | yi ge med pa) or (Letterless Tantra | yi ge med pa'i rgyud)
  11. No creator in Buddhism?

    Hello Tibetan_Ice, I'm doing well, thanks for asking... just a little busy lately with studies so not much time to participate in discussions. Hope you're doing well too Having realized the formless Beingness/Presence, there is a tendency to reify that formless Beingness/Presence as being of a higher, more ultimate status than other forms and experiences. Then with the view of inherency and duality, it may be treated as an Eternal Witness, and later the One Mind subsuming all experiences. However, after anatta, the 'mere appearances' are not treated as 'passing, unimportant stuff' but are realized to be Buddha-nature themselves. Then that intensity of luminosity of SOUND, of SCENERY must be directly experienced (and will naturally be experienced after anatta). The key that leads to this transition is the realization of anatta (as an insight, not merely a nondual peak experience): In hearing only ever sound, no hearer, in seeing only ever just scenery, no seer. There has never been an actual agent, seer, seeing the seen - the seer-seeing-seen framework is a delusional reification. What is this 'SOUND'? It is Pure Presence itself... Then next is to see the illusoriness of this self-luminous-display (and the self-luminosity IS the display, the spontaneous manifestation), still as vividly bright, present, yet like an illusion/dream, empty and non-arising. Then there is truly One Taste in all manifestations and in its essence as self-luminous clarity and its empty nature. When Self-originated primal awareness is realized to be always this spontaneous manifestation, then all manifestation are recognized to be one's empty clarity. Just this is the Dharmata, the nature of reality. I was reminded of something Thusness wrote some months ago. As I said in the other thread Thusness does not represent Dzogchen whatsoever (and he is always careful not to be mis-associated as some Dzogchen-related person hence this disclaimer), but still I feel there is some relevance to this thread. He said to Jackson Peterson in Dharma Connection (fb group): '' John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up. This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who. In hearing, it's that "sound". In seeing, it's that "scenery". In thinking, it is that "eureka"! In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping". Just marvelous such as it is on the fly. So no "it" but thoroughly empty. To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory. I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him. Nice chat And happy journey jax! Gone! December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10 ......... John Tan Hi Kyle, Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising. In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising. In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly. This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes. Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing! Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year. Happy New Year Kyle. 2 minutes ago • Unlike • 1 February 6 at 1:50am · Edited · Like' p.s. Kyle (asunthatneversets) also shared with me his realization of anatta years ago: ...my most shocking and powerful experience so far was anatta in the theme of that first stanza thusness wrote: There is thinking, no thinker, There is hearing, no hearer, There is seeing, no seer. It actually came on suddenly one day and it was intensely profound for me, brought me to tears... in that experience thought actually cut out completely as if it was buried... and I unknowingly forced it to come back so I could jot down mental notes on the experience which were actually exactly the same as his stanza, seeing no seer, hearing no hearer, experience IS...
  12. No creator in Buddhism?

    http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html Malcolm Smith: Malcolm SmithDecember 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen. The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara. All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real. In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real. In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins. Reply
  13. Thusness and His Path.

    If there's any terms I'm using that you aren't sure what it means feel free to ask I'll clarify
  14. Thusness and His Path.

    I have absolutely no idea who Anderson is. Thusness is not a guru
  15. Thusness and His Path.

    Yes. When I talk about anatta I generally talk about the subjective side. The insight into the emptiness of subject/agent/etc leads to gapless, non-dual, direct, experience of all display as self-luminosity, but seeing the non-arising and illusoriness of the display that leads to further release comes later and that is the 2nd of twofold emptiness. But generally by anatta (firstfold), everything is naturally and quite effortlessly experienced as a non-dual luminous display.