dwai

you surely reflect your level of "achievement"...wow! you are one enlightened being, aren't you?!?

I didn't bicker. If you didn't want to discuss this with me and not "bicker", you should have just kept your thoughts to yourself. I posted what I did to share with those TTBers who aren't into pseudo-buddhist crap that is being floated here. If it doesn't float your boat, just go on your own merry way with your practice and your ideas. My arguments don't seem constructive to you because they deconstruct the platform you are standing on. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">I have clearly and succinctly articulated what my position vis-a-vis Consciousness, Reality, Experience etc are. I don't know how else i can make my position more "constructive" than that! I stopped seeking "guidance" from the great Buddhists on this forum a long time back...right when it became abundantly clear to me that there was nothing much of value I could learn from them. I did not however jump in and hijack threads on other traditions by shoveling the pseudo-buddhist garbage into them...so I guess I am lesser of the "evils" that lurk in the dark corners of TTB. As far as those who take time to "show me the way" are concerned...please by all means ignore my posts. I'm sure I'll just fade away into the anonymity of the Web just like any other troll whose ego is not fed. Sure...everyone is enlightened It shows in the way the humans in this world behave...in stochastic, non-deterministic, nihilistic "miraculous" ways!

That is actually your opinion and might not have any bearing to facts. You don't know me or anything about me. Likewise I don't know you and don't know anything about you. What we have is perception that has grown with a few interactions on the internet. Based on which, I quite share your opinion of my "knowledge" with you, in that I don't think you have much maturity in Buddhism or Taoism either. But that doesn't mean I will discount your perspective...I will simply not agree with it. Our interactions have been not so much about the proverbial pat on each other's backs but of pitting two different modes of thinking against each other. You (and a few others here) try to find the differences, I find the commonality. It boils down to a difference in our inherent personalities. Just because you THINK you are right doesn't automatically make me wrong. And vice versa...I only challenged those assertions and views that challenged those that I hold. I haven't seen any convincing argument to make me change mine. And don't for one instance think I'd turn to an internet forum to gather knowledge from anonymous individuals...I will turn to more familiar and reliable sources, like my Sifu, my Guru, etc. I can assure you that in the school of Taoism I follow, it is exactly as it is in Advaita Vedanta. My teacher of Madhyamika/Advaita is not only a renowned physicist but also a classically trained philosopher in Madhyamika and Advaita Vedanta (in the Gurukul system). He teaches a synthesis of the two and the fact that it all leads to the same realization. My personal experiences starting with a series of "lightning strikes" when I was 19 to present moment (and I am 35 now) have all led to the same realization...so then we are pitting your (and your friends') training and experience against those that I hold to be in my tradition(s) (in each of these systems). So, I complement my personal practice with material that has a long tradition and also academic rigor. That demonstrates a lack of experience and more in the realm of intellectual "understanding". Yes and no. They are phases...first there is no division, then there is division, then there is no division (because you choose to have it that way). It changes with maturity of practice. The veracity or lack of it thereof is evident to in the words and actions that one projects (even on a medium such as the internet). I stand by my opinion of Vaj...impetuous, circular and ignorant. If you notice, I don't engage him anymore, neither Mikaelz...I don't find any point in doing so. Quite the contrary, since these "states" are important to breaking out of the conditioned consciousness that we have, due to the dualistic nature of this material existence. If not, everyone would be "enlightened"... Of course, you might be an Enlightened Sage...but it doesn't show (with all due respect of course). For you maybe. Why is it so hard to understand that different people have different ways to get certain insights and understandings? I have had similar conversations with hare Krishnas, who think that only their religion is correct and everyone else is a fool. As it is with Christians and Moslems...I don't see any difference in the level of dogmatism here. Isn't that what we do anyway?

Every moment is dependently originated and empty of self-nature. That is a natural course of things...the important thing is to delve deeper into the "unknowable".

There are labels ascribed upon perception/cognition and then labels ascribed due to lack of perception/cognition. Phenomena are the former, Consciousness is the latter. You can...by realizing this Consciousness in it's purest form, in the gap between thoughts. The rub is in the expression without explanation. The problem is in the inadequacy of the English language. If used terms like prajna, cit, antahkarana, etc and you understood what they meant, the conversation would perhaps be easier. For that, you have to learn a different categorical framework...and I am saying it with all due respect...not trying to trivialize your intelligence or your sincerity. I never said you cannot realize it. I said you cannot realize it using the phenomenological apparatii directly. You can verily realize it by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna). That is the goal of all these schools...Taoism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta. in the phenomenal sense, yes there are two parts to experience...but in the absolute sense, there is only Consciousness. So you agree that Consciousness is not a phenomenon, since you don't want to discuss it any further...I do think you understood what I'm trying to express here. I can detect a fraud when I see it. Sorry to say it, I like Thusness' articles and have deep respect for him and Xabir. However, I don't extend that to Vaj... And my stance has not been a purely hypothetical one. It is driven by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna). Let me turn that around. You still haven't answered why the "non-self" is so seductive to you. To answer your question....I did...It didn't make sense to me...neither intellectually, nor experientially. And I realized that Buddhism too is merely a categorical framework, a raft that needs to be discarded at some point in the journey.

I would rather say that Relative Truths work in the phenomenlogical context, Absolute Truth works in the Non-phenomenological context. Relative truths might be a limited way to express the Absolute Truth, but Relative Truths are also everything else which doesn't necessarily have to deal with or even acknowledge absolute truth. From a phenomenological vantage point, formlessness can also be a phenomenon because even though it doesn't have a form, if it can be labeled and it has a beginning and an end. So, a "thought" is a formless phenomenon. How does that have any bearing with the Absolute Self? There in lies our fallacy. We think we understand how a noumenon like Consciousness is supposed to behave. And that too, by following the rules and laws of the phenomenological world. The very reason Consciousness is noumenal is because it is beyond labels and forms and is not governed by laws of the phenomenal world. It is the root of realization...without getting here (however that might be), one cannot realize Pure Consciousness. And without stabilizing oneself in this state, one cannot begin to fathom what this state entails. There is no merging...only a realization. Indeed... Meditation in the gap, induced in numerous ways -- via Pranayama, Hatha Yoga, Taiji Chuan, simply sitting, simply lying down, walking, driving, brushing my teeth, etc. All of these are lofty goals...to better one's personal practice, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that only One way has it right or only one way is the best. It is all relative to the individual...you might find Buddhism best, I might find Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta all leading to the same experience. They are relative truths all, trying to convey the absolute.

I got what you wanted to convey perfectly. You didn't understand what I was suggesting...a phenomenon can be with both label and form or only label or only form. Even your mental image is a phenomenon, as is your dreams, your day dreams etc. Do you understand the 2-level model as posited by Buddhism? The samvritti and paramartha satya domains (or relative and absolute reality domains)? Phenomena fall in the relative domain (that's why they are dependently originated). Consciousness falls in the Absolute domain, that's why it's not a phenomenon. That's why language fails to explain consciousness...it can only describe the objects and an awareness of these objects, not pure consciousness. That doesn't mean consciousness doesn't exist independently...it only means it is beyond the relative domain. The gap between thoughts is everything...after you can stabilize in the gap is when everything else follows. Good and Evil, suffering and joy are simply in the relative domain...once one realizes the Real Self, the duality of relative domain doesn't matter anymore. Why is the Real Self-based teaching inapplicable in the present moment? Your comments show me that you have some kind of abrahamic baggage that you are carrying, thus this insistence that by suggesting there is an Absolute Self, one is claiming God-hood for his/herself... The Absolute Self is beyond Gods...

I think you are getting to what I have realized...these BBs are too fixated on the words to understand what Madhyamika prasanga really means and what is the implication of pratityasamutpada. However, they criticize anyone who rocks their "boat" as being "fixated", "reifying", blah blah blah!

The description of the tissue box might not be the direct experience of it, but you have experienced tissues boxes and you will know what is being referred to (say you formulate a mental image of a tissue box while reading about it). That means it is within the bounds of name and form (nama rupa). Therefore, it is a phenomenon. Consciousness is not like a tissue box. You can neither give it a form nor a description. Why don't you try? Again, Awarenss (which is a result of conscious' interaction with objects) is not the same as Consciousness. Everything in our material universe has a beginning and an end (they are temporal). Pure Consciousness (the True Self) has no beginning or end. I agree that Consciousness is Luminous Emptiness...and I also agree that in experience they are inseparable from it's objects... but that is not all. That is not what the Turiya state shows....Consciousness stands and exists in it's own light without any objects (go back to the gap between thoughts) BTW, have you wondered why it is called "luminous"?

I think you guys cling to "Non-Self" because you haven't really experienced the Self. If you would prefer it, I could call "Self" something else...but you guys won't buy that either. Non-Phenomenal Self stabilizes into Non-Dual realization. There is no "A consciousness", there is only Consciousness...which doesn't need an object to make one realize it, because one is already that consciousness.

Neti neti is a process...it leads to realization of the Anatman. I think you understand what I'm trying to say, but hide behind words.

If you can describe it, it is a phenomenon. If it is not, it is non-phenomenon. Consciousness cannot be described, it's structure cannot be explained...there can be feeble attempts, like "hearing taste and smelling sound" but these are not sound. It cannot be experienced because it is the source of experience...without it no dependent origination...it is the only and absolute requirement for existence. Without it, Buddhists would not be able to try and prove that it is a phenomenon. As a corollary thereof, a phenomenon is something with a beginning and an end. It is either a percept or a concept or both percept and concept (so in other words, it has a form or a label or both). It is either temporal or spatial+temporal or temporal or spatial.

Shankara's arguments show that the concept of Alaya Vijnana, in other words, a continuum of momentary entities (call it a stream) is an illogical/irrational construct. If you (Lucky) are not a "self" but a continuum of disparate momentariness, then you are not you, nor would be able to type and speak and breath and walk with your identity (no matter how much you would like to prove it as otherwise). Your confusion stems from a mistaken understanding of the Madhyamika prasanga... That is indeed a good way to show that the world and the phenomena in it are empty by nature (therefore, not falling in any absolute category). It is however a cop-out when it comes to the topic at hand...because it has no bearing on consciousness underlying the perception/conception of the phenomenal (samvritti) world. So, in other words, don't try to hide behind concepts and words...your assertions make no sense whatsoever. That which makes you able to say "hearing taste or touching sound" is the one that is being discussed here.

These are all phenomenal things...Consciousness is not. So your fine poem would be better articulated this way: Awareness is not separate from objects. Time is not separate from events. Blowing is not separate from wind. Mirror is not separate from reflection. And my addition: Not-Self is not separate from Self.

Anatta realization is rudimentary stage in neti-neti process...there is nothing groundbreaking or earth-shattering about it once one comes to terms with it. It does not remove the background because that which removes the background, that which thinks it is multiplicity is still the limited self/consciousness...

Just lie down in shavasana, let your entire body relax. As your body relaxes your mind becomes pronounced...observe the thoughts....simply be. At one point the thoughts will slow down and you will find the gap between the thoughts...as time goes that too will expand...be in that gap. That is meditation

Awareness is a function of consciousness, when presented with an object (so be it a thought or a material object to sense with a sensory apparatus), it is phenomenal. Consciousness simply is...it exists, has always existed and will always continue to exist. Awareness and Consciousness are not the same thing!

There in lies the "TWIST"...dear SB... Both are right! Again I give you David Loy's essay on this subject: Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?

It is not simply an opinion...it is a fact. The very fact that You and I and every other person is posting and writing, eating, sleeping and living is a testament to the fact that there is a subjective basis for all experience. One cannot say in a similar vein, that the subjective basis of all experience is a Not-Self. If they did, then the Self and Not-Self are one and the same.

me and wise ass? nah man...you got me mistaken for someone else. If it is so moot a discussion, why bother responding? BTW, I love you and everyone else (mostly)