xabir2005

As Bernadette Roberts said, it is necessary to draw the distinctions. But it is not to criticize others. Its purpose is not to say 'this is higher than that'. Like Greg Goode said those who are familiar with awareness teachings may try to substitute the terms, which will not work. We should let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves.

Yes, anyway karma in Hinduism is not really the same as karma in Buddhism and different from Jainism, and also rebirth was Buddha's own experience having remember 91 aeons of past lives.

Just to clarify a bit: as Namdrol said before, other teachings/religions do have some kind of 'emptiness' teaching -- but their emptiness teaching is totally different from Buddhism which is talking about Dependent Origination. So other religions may teach things like 'phenomena are unreal, noumenon alone is real' but it is nothing like Dependent Origination which is a unique feature of Buddhism.

Catholic contemplative Bernadette Roberts: "That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine. Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

No this is the old argument by Hindus but this is wrong and baseless. Buddha rejected the Vedas and did not base his teachings on them. A portion of the article in Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta is in refuting this statement. Even Bernadette Roberts, the Catholic contemplative, said: "The often heard notion that Hinduism encompasses or subsumes all other belief systems is true only if every belief system holds with Hinduism that the Absolute IS consciousness or self (Atman). If a belief system does not hold this same view, it cannot be compatible with Hinduism. While every religion shares certain views and experiences in common, when it comes down to the fine line we have to admit our differences. If there were no profound differences, we could not account for different religions."

According to Advaita doctrine which I can easily quote. I did not 'not allow' other conversation partners to speak for themselves. In fact, it is not possible in an open forum. In fact check to see if there is any difference between what I said about Advaita and what Dwai said. If what I said did not corresponded to his view, he would have corrected me. Of course not all. I'm sure most Buddhists have no idea what Advaita is. On the other hand I did read a couple of Advaita books, I even practised self-inquiry, I know their basic teachings. I'm not saying I'm 'knowledgeable', but it doesn't take a knowledgeable person to see the difference. Many people including Buddhists don't know Advaita, they haven't read up on it, when they say 'no atman' and that Hinduism teaches 'atman' they might think of something like 'oh, they still teach an ego' whereas the 'atman' they're talking about is not a phenomenal atman, an ego, but a transcendental self. Just an example. If Brahman exists, that is by definition NOT empty, since emptiness means empty of the 4 extremes of existence, non existence, both and neither. Emptiness means 'NO essence'. Brahman is an essence, independent, eternal.

There is no 'a level further'. The luminosity or pure consciousness is being mistaken as Brahman or Self or a background Witness. When it is not mistaken, it is not grasped as a background, so it is experienced in all appearances. Though this can be translated to something like 'Brahman is the Universe' (Ramana Maharshi, Shankara), Buddhism further negates any inherency to a basic substance. There is absolutely no separation between Ultimate and Relative. Buddhism does not deny the clear luminous nature, only that it must not be seen as an essence. Most people see only the luminous aspect but not the empty aspect. Of course, seeing the empty aspect alone is not enough. That experience of luminosity in the case of someone who claimed to realised Brahman is equally important (though must not be misunderstood). Therefore in Buddhist traditions our true nature is known as luminosity and emptiness inseparable. In fact if you read Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment you would see there is no denying of the vivid luminosity of awareness, even in stage 6, only that its empty nature is understood.

Emptiness is the ever present nature just as impermanence is the ever present nature. It's not an ultimate reality, not an ontological essence, it's just a truth, a truth that applies to all phenomena. Regarding shentong and rangtong, I wrote before: .................... We should understand that whatever views established are done as merely a 'raft' or a 'skillful means' and the view/raft/skillful means will eventually dissolve in its own accord after realisation. When it adds to more clinging to a particular view as absolute, then it has not properly done its job. Shentong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of eternalism, Rangtong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of nihilism. As a matter of fact Nagarjuna has refuted both views. But at the same time they serves as 'antidotes' or 'rafts' and 'skillful means' that can help overcome certain subtle attachments. Shentongpa is particularly helpful in overcoming the false view of nihilism, Rangtong is helpful in overcoming the false view of eternalism.

Just to relate to what I pasted previously on 'stream entry': (11:39 PM) Thusness: how did Zen I AMness becomes stream entry? all sort of nonsense. what stream entry? why stream entry? why stream winner? why 'stream' at all?

No. For them, transcendent means transcending waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It does not mean it is empty: rather, it is the only real 'thing' existing, and is eternal -- unmoved and unaffected by the unreal coming and goings of states and experiences. It is formless and shapeless, it is void of attributes, it is luminous and conscious, but it is not empty of inherent existence. Rather it is inherent, independent and eternal, a background witness. Hence, a transcendental self is not the same as the Buddhist emptiness at all. As what Thusness said 4 years ago: When the pure, formless, clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous enters the sphere of thoughts, the mind transforms the Presence into an 'ENTITY' that is pure, formless, clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous. This entity, this something is the 'Self' added by a divided mind. Without creating this 'center', this base, this something, a divided mind does not know how to function. Because the thinking mind understands through measurement and comparison. In buddhism, this 'Self' is extra and created. In reality it does not exist. This is the wisdom to be awaken in order to see reality in its nakedness. When this is clear, the stream always IS.

There is no state to reach. What is presently appearing is already fully empty -- nothing needs to be 'emptied' other than simply realising emptiness as the nature of all appearances, already so. To try to 'empty' something implies something is 'existing' and yet to be 'emptied', but really, all appearances are from the beginning empty already, to try to 'empty' something that cannot be found is still under the illusion of inherent existence. Similarly you can never 'get rid of self', other than simply realising that a separate observer, doer, agent, cannot be found. How can you get rid of something that is not even there in the first place? What is gotten rid of at the moment of insight is not a self, but the tendency to project a self, due to direct intuitive insight of the seal of Anatta. The practice is to gain sufficient perceptual clarity of our experience from moment to moment so that we can gain insight into the 'ever present' nature of reality. But no-self and emptiness is not a practice -- it is what is always and already so, a.k.a Dharma Seal, or the characteristic of existence/phenomena. So practice is important, just that it must not be misunderstood. As I said what is important is the insight into the ever-present nature -- it is not about achieving a state. Lastly it is true that though there never was a doer, watcher, agent, or inherency to be found at any moment -- the appearance of a doer or agent or watcher, though nothing inherent and merely an illusion, can still appear very real due to strong latent karmic tendencies or deep conditionings. These conditionings can only be dissolved after deep insights. To understand and experience that strength of karmic propensities is just as important. What is the condition that give rise to the sensation of a split? Dependent origination. Dependent on this, that arises. When the condition is gone, then the appearance of a split is also gone. But when the tendency is there, the split is also there. The appearance is also dependently originated and hence nothing inherent.

BTW Thusness have said before, his 7 stages are merely a guide for practitioners, we should not just think in terms of stages. Some is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of luminosity, then luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of "I AM" is now the last stage? On the other hand, some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he get himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all therefore cannot understand Dependent Origination adequately. But does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity? Some people experience non-dual but did not go through the I AM, and then after non-dual the I AM becomes even more precious because it will bring out the luminosity aspect more. Also, when in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining non-dual insight and experience. So just see them as phases different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights. Then one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher. I hope this clarifies things. Also, Thusness have said before that even though he had non-dual and emptiness insights, but in terms of strength of absorption, he and most other practitioners cannot compare with Ramana Maharshi. People like Ramana have the ability to sit for hours and days and it doesn't mean anything to these practitioners. Absorption is another dimension and the 'dry insight' cultivators should not think they know a lot even though they may have some level of experience in it. Certain thing needs practice, like exercise and body building, and needs to develop the skill through discipline. One needs to give up all worldly stuff for it, needs to be vegetarian, etc. and without that, certain sort of experiences will not be there. It does not mean one must do all these to be enlightened, just that certain aspects simply won't be there until one meets all these criterias. It is not about who is higher, really. I think there are valuable things to be learnt from everyone.

Let me put it this way: Debating about 'who is better' is pointless. But having right discernment of the teaching is important.

Different, yes. But I just don't want to make the whole debate about who is better, which is pretty pointless. The purpose of my posting is just for people to have a better understanding of the teaching of Anatta (no-self) and Shunyata (emptiness), that's all. If you disagree, and refuse to read what I wrote, I don't mind and see no point to convince you. I did not set up threads to convert people to Buddhism or something like that, nor do I reply with the intention of claiming that Buddhism is superior -- but simply to point out Anatta and Shunyata and clear misconceptions. My replies simply arise out of specific causes and conditions and is in reponse to the posts and questions posed by other people. Though you find it laughable, others might find it appropriate. I am sorry that some may have found my posts to be offensive, and I certainly am not a skillful writer.

In direct experience, there is only appearances. No self-center could be found. No tangible object or entities etc can be found either. And this is the same for everyone. No doer and no self has nothing to do with escaping existence. In fact, as Jeff Foster puts it: there is only ever the present appearance of life, with no individual at its core who could ever escape even if they wanted to. No self has nothing to do with non existence. That is an extreme. No-self means a self center at the core of life, that is the 'doer' of actions, observer of things, etc. cannot be found. There is instead only action, only scenery and sounds and taste and touch and smells and thoughts, without a separate observer/hearer/seer/thinker. Emptiness also has nothing to do with not seeing and hearing things. There is hearing and seeing, but what is seen and heard are merely appearances -- like the mirage off the ocean, nothing tangible, graspable, locatable. Nothing 'out there' even though it appears so, so to speak. Like a vivid red flower that appears to be out there yet is not really out there -- dogs only see black flower, other realms may see something altogether different, we see 99.999% void if given quantum eyesight. The apparent solidity and objectivity of 'redness' and 'flower' is really just an illusion. There is merely appearances without objective reality and solidity. The entire interdependent universe is giving rise the vivid sight of 'red flower' yet nothing solid. It is dependently originated, and thus empty of any inherent existence. So -- emptiness is not life denying, it just means the solidity, inherency, we posit to phenomena and self is simply not there, unlocatable. And dependent origination is not just a concept. As Namdrol states: Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana: "Form is similar to a foam, Feeling is like water bubbles, Ideation is equivalent with a mirage, Formations are similar with a banana tree, Consciousness is like an illusion."

Our nature is already self perfected from the beginning. You can't make it more than what already is. Awareness always is. Buddha-nature already is. Emptiness already is. No-self already is. Realising 'no self from beginning' has nothing to do with getting rid of ego. Practicing can't make awareness brighter than it already is. It is the 'insight' and 'realisation' of what already and always is that is important, not about reaching any altered or 'higher' states. Yet... to reach this sudden realisation, takes a long time and practice, investigation, mindful awareness, etc. The Buddha taught about various factors for awakening and the 8 fold path leading to enlightenment. In Buddhism we do not see arising without causes and conditions. Non-dual Awareness does not mean a lack of discernment of the causes and conditions of arising. There's an article you can read: Why The Notion that You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

I'm talking about the generally accepted and recognised definition of those terms. It is still important to, as mikael quoted here: "Let us make distinctions, and call things by their right names." -- Henry David Thoreau, Wild Fruits. With the lack of such distinctions, many people get wrong understandings of what 'emptiness', 'anatta', etc in Buddhism means. p.s. atman just means 'self', this is a universal sanskrit term. What the 'atman' is, is another issue. Advaita posits a 'self' that is transcendent. In buddhism we do not posit an atman, whether within nor outside the 5 skandhas.