xabir2005

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits, Empty phenomena roll on, This view alone is right and true. No god, no Brahma, may be called, The maker of this wheel of life, Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all." Visuddhimagga XIX.

I remember Thusness told me many years ago that the Dark Zen folks invited him to join them before Maybe he should have... and reform the wrong understanding from within

I'm not sure about tSotGF, but as for Zen, you could probably find a living zen teacher nearby your place: http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

As far as the two articles go I think it's pretty clear that Shunyata is not a God like essence or a formless vast awareness, but the non-independent, D.O. nature of Mind. I think they are pretty clear. Of course, this level of clarity is not very common.

As I said before, in Buddhism nothing has an origin. Everything dependently originates, it is not the same as awareness having an origin or birth/creation. Hence in Buddhism Nothing is created, everything is unborn. They dependently originates, and there is no creation of anything. Non buddhists reify a source that is non-created and only the source is not created. But in Buddhism, there is no origination and no 'The Source' (all manifestation is source). Awareness has no monopoly. A good way to talk about this is the Conventional and Ultimate nature of Awareness. When we stop gross conceptualizing and identification with gross experiences, we experience the conventional nature of awareness. Feels like an oceanic vast space-like formless yet aware presence. As we progress we realise this vast spacious awareness is totally inseperable from all forms. And yet, we need one more step: realising the ultimate nature of mind, which is empty (not the formlessness which is the conventional nature of awareness -- but the non-independent, groundless, dependently originated nature of awareness). The conventional and ultimate nature does not cancel out each other. A very good talk would by Realizing the Nature of Mind by Rob Burbea which my friend Thusness thought was amazingly clear: And here's a quote from the Dalai Lama himself which Rob Burbea himself mentioned a bit somewhere in the talk: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...a-and-mind.html

Sorry, I'm Chinese and my English is not that good. What's extraniated? If you mean removed from my human position, well, there is no separate self that can remove himself from whatever he is experiencing right now. I cannot remove myself from the vision of the red flower because there is no 'I' that is apart from it. I cannot remove myself from my human condition because I am it so to speak, in other words, there is no findable separate 'I', just dependently originated, vivid yet empty phenomena. Because we function in a human world, it is important to know how to label, recognise things, learn the concepts and names etc. At the same time we learn to see reality -- that what we labeled is in actuality not an independent or fixed entity, just like a 'car' is not an independent entity but is in actuality only removable and interdependent parts where no 'car-essence' can be found in any of the parts nor apart from the parts, and is only labeled as such by mere convention. What we call 'weather' isn't an actual findable entity and is merely a word we use to describe an everchanging flow of interdependently originated phenomena, clouds, rain, lightning, blowing, etc. What we call 'self' is also just like that, a mere convention that is made up of an everchanging stream of interdependently originated five aggregates (form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness) with no findable self-essence. We see clearly that there is nothing to hold on to, and no separate 'me' that can chase after, cling to, or escape from perceived objects mistaken as 'other than me', and thus no longer separating ourselves and things and experiencing everything as a seamless flowing whole. All sufferings is the result of not seeing this. Realising the first emptiness, the emptiness of self, we experience that there is no independent separate self/agent/experiencer, simply these shapes, colours and sounds and thoughts vividly appearing. And yet where are these? Looking at our direct experience is thought residing somewhere or is it an unlocatable appearance? Investigating where and how thought arise, we may realise that thought is without substance and origin just like an illusion. What we perceive as 'red flower' is fine to be labeled as such out of convention -- but we can also experience the dependently originated and empty nature of that vision deeply in our experience. Is the redness an attribute that can be located outside the mind? Or is it inside the mind? Or is it just a mere dependently originated suchness. Looking this way we realise it's unfindable, no essence anywhere, no inside or outside, just D.O. Seemingly, magically, appearing yet not really there. Fully experiencing this we realise the emptiness of all phenomena, objects, the second emptiness. Realising emptiness has nothing to do with being removed from forms, as Heart Sutra states, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Emptiness is not something other than form. Everything is still vividly experienced, but like a mirage, not grasped, objectified or subjectified. Life goes on, now seen as a magical play. By practicing bare mindfulness of our own experience we begin to unravel the true nature of our experience. It can be directly experienced and realised, and I have had passing glimpses and intense experiences of the nondual nature of consciousness. I am not enlightened yet, however.

Yes, like the net of indra, each one contained in all, and all contained in each one, mutually interdependent.

Yes, self awareness is ignorance, but awareness without self is not ignorance. Actually awareness has all along been without self, but was mistaken as self, and upon realisation awareness is freed from the illusion of self. An all pervading awareness, if mistaken as an ultimate self, is still under ignorance. However if freed from the illusion of self altogether (whether a self or a Self), that is liberation. The Buddha has said that the Mind of the Arhant is a consciousness which is unmanifest, signless, infinite and radiant in all directions. Awareness itself is not ignorance, has nothing to do with self, being, or non being, we simply superimpose our illusions on it. Also, experience are common, realization is not. One who experiences it may not realise it (i.e. no-self) as the nature that is always so, but one who realises it as the nature will experience it. I believe in Bodhisattvas and Buddhalands.

Awareness has nothing to do with ignorance. A non ignorant person continues to be fully aware. Anyone not seeing, hearing, smelling, is dead, is a corpse. A quantum leap of perception I am speaking of is not the same as a leap from one conceptual view to the next. Rather it is the ending of all inherent and dualistic views due to the direct insight of D.O. and emptiness. That too is my stance. What Thich Nhat Hanh, a truly enlightened master, said is entering the Right View without Taint which according to Buddha only the enlightened beings have entered into. I never said that intellectual understanding alone is enough, however according to Buddha right mindfulness and right effort is made possible by mindfully entering into right view (Which means putting effort in reminding, and experiencing, the right view in direct experience), and hence right view is on top of the list of the noble 8 fold path. Non-enlightened beings have only a conceptual understanding but not a direct realisation and hence is different. You can't transcend awareness, if you did you'll be a corpse. The purpose of Dharma is not to annihilate yourself and your awareness. End clinging, false view of self, identity, yes, but not awareness. You can however transcend the illusion of a separative consciousness, a 'me in here' experiencing 'world out there'. When there is no more sense of a being, then there is simply manifestation not perceived through a separate perceiver. Sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, there never was a thinker, never was a seer. It is a realisation, it is not a stage of experience. Whenever it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. What is realised in the awakening or realisation of no-self is what is already always the case.

Unfortunately, karma and rebirth is something to be taken by faith until one sees and experiences it for himself (which I know many people personally who does experience past lives memories and karma, including Vajrahridaya here, but also many others). At least in Buddhism, rebirth and karma is still a very important part of Buddhism which many people unfortunately have chosen to ignore, or is unable to accept. "The sacred texts say that after 40 days, the truth came to Siddhartha in stages. During the first night watch, he achieved insight into all his past lives. During the second night watch, he discovered the coherence of cyclical existence, the law of cause and effect, the movement of karma. During the third and last nightwatch, he conquered the four mental poisons: sensual desire, attachment, wrong views, and ignorance. That evening, under a full moon in the month of May, in the age of 35, he attained enlightenment, awakening, Supreme Knowledge, Nirvana." Very good youtube video imo which I just found in another forum, by Thich Nhat Hanh. It's title is 'Nirvana'. Here's another one, titled 'Emptiness': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

Scotty, I think you forgot this post by Vajrahridaya: Anyway, there's a good and timely post in my other Buddhist forum by another forummer (which also happened to be discussing on karma and dependent origination) a few hours ago: from my personal understanding, cause & effect as we understand it in daily life is just an extremely superficial view of how reality works (dependent origination). nothing wrong with A+B=C understanding of cause & effect and it works for our simple understanding of how things works in daily life. hit the bell and if the ears are working and we will hear the sound of bell, no problem. mix blue and green and u get yellow, no problem too. but this superficial and simplistic understanding does not in any way fully describe the teaching of dependent origination or how reality, phenomenon and processes works. reason why when a person breathes, changes the air pressure but didn't cause tornado is simply because dependent origination is not so simplistic as A+B=C as we think it is. dependent origination is probably more like A+B+C...N=result, where N=infinity, to put it in scientific sense. that's why kind person (A) + do good deeds ( does not always = good outcome (not immediately anyway). we see kind people who do good still encounter so-called bad outcomes simply because all the conditions are not in place to produce the good outcome. we assume we just need A+B but in reality it is A+B+C....N to produce the "good outcome". so when we mistakenly assume that we only need A+B=C, and we don't see it happens immediately (like good people encountering bad circumstances), we then further mistakenly thinks that dependent origination is not true, cause & effect is not true. fact of matter is we do not appreciate dependent origination deeply enough to know its implications and how it impacts the simplistic "cause & effect" phenomenon in daily life. i think the teaching of emptiness helps me personally to understand dependent origination much better. the lack of inherent existence of A, B, C...N is exactly why the eventual and expected outcome can be "produced" relatively. at what exact point in time does a seed appear/disappear that leads to the exact point in time a sprout appear/disappear? who knows... Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise. - Nagarjuna

There is no 'I' seeing phenomena arising. There is just phenomena, and then another phenomena, and then another phenomena. Each phenomena is whole and complete as it is. It does not come from somewhere, nor does it go somewhere, nor does it turn into something else. Each manifestation is whole and complete, without movement, without coming from nor going to. By self-luminous manifestation, I don't mean manifestation arising out of a luminous source and subsiding back into it. There is no self, big or small, only ceaseless manifestations. At an earlier phase, the practitioner experiences the pure I AMness, and mistakens it to be ultimate. It is in fact no more ultimate than the transient mind, then it is realised that all manifestation is the source and there is no other source to fall back to. Also, between the realisation of I AMness (self becoming conscious of itself) and the realisation of non-duality (pure perception has always been happening without perceiver/self), one may enter into a state of oblivion there is no longer even the awareness of self, not even the I Am. Here everything manifests spontaneously out of pure nothingness of its own accord. This is Thusness Stage 3, but it is not the realisation of no-self. Any states, including that nothingness, if taken as an Absolute or a 'Purest' is still an illusion. Related: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment I don't agree with that. As I see it, there never was separation, separation is an illusion. There is no universe out there, or a static universe, only univers-ing, the ever flowing process of manifestation/manifesting, with no one behind the flow. Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh puts it nicely: "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

Dualistic consciousness of "me" experiencing "outer objects", and thus a "me" manipulating "objects", "me" fearing "objects", "me" chasing after "objects", "me" trying to destroy/hate/push away "objects", etc... that is grasping at existence. When it is seen there is no such separate I, and no longer any identification with duality, the attempt to bridge, divide, or do something to the subject/object gap is removed. Awareness functions perfectly without grasping, just no longer seen the same way as before (no longer a 'me' inside my head looking 'out there'). There are many concepts of non-duality, oneness, many of which I do not mean here. As a friend of mine ('longchen') wrote: http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct. Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity. No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping. However, there are also many degrees of experience and insights to the non-duality of subject and object. At an earlier phase, one may realise that awareness is one with everything. However there is still a grasping onto an ultimate Self, an ultimate Awareness that is 'one' with everything. A higher realisation is that there is no permanent essence, or self, to be one with everything. Here a mirror/reflection union is clearly understood as flawed, there is only vivid reflection. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. There is only 'everything' as is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence, without an agent/actor/self/perceiver/doer/thinker/etc. This is the Buddhist realisation of no-self. Sound hears, scenery sees, everything manifests but there never is a seer/hearer/experiencer. Awareness has no birth, originator or origination, however there is interconnectedness, conditions. At the earlier 'I AM' phase of insight it's seen that Awareness is unborn, but it is mistakenly separated from all phenomena. They cannot be separated. In actuality all phenomena are unborn, there is no The Unborn in opposition to phenomena.

I am not sure what do you mean here you may want to clarify especially the last sentence. A no-self experience is not identifying himself with anything, and that means no longer an experiencer standing back from pure perception, the sound, the vision, the action, the thought. Everything is just self-luminous manifestation. Also actually, it is not an 'experience', because it is not a temporary altered state, but it is what is realised to be already always the case. Always So. It is the nature of reality, there never was separation in the first place. It is not a state to be attained and never was there a separation to bridge. People can get into altered states of consciousness where the sense of self dissolves into a non-dual experience, but this is not the same as arising the insight that reality has always been non-dual. An experience is temporary, an insight is permanent. I don't get your logic. A non-dual event has nothing to do with a grasping for existence, and grasping for a separate existence prevents non-dual experience. However as I mentioned, even when all sense of self dissolves into a 'non dual event'/'non dual experience', this is not the same as realisation/insight. The universe knows.