thuscomeone

First of all, I have to admit that I've been a bit sporadic and all over the place with my thoughts in this thread. Jumping from one conclusion to the next. Saying that I believe one thing and then rejecting it. I apologize if that has been frustrating. This has all been caused by an itch for some kind of knowledge. I sent Xabir a message last night saying that I was going to take a break from practice for a while because I was spending too much time no it and neglecting to do other things. Well earlier today those plans changed a bit. I had a breakthrough while contemplating "emptiness is form." This is closely related to what I said to xabir in my message but not quite the same. It has to do with non attachment to the view/thought/recognition of emptiness. But it is not a direct realization about suffering; Rather, it is about the nature of reality. Ok, take "emptiness is form." What does this actually mean? Well first it means that emptiness is not apart from dependently arisen phenomena. But what happens then is that we believe that we need to maintain a realization of emptiness. We need to think about it and experience it. What we don't realize is that if "emptiness" is truly form, we don't need to keep thinking about emptiness and maintaining a realization of it. We ARE it. Whatever we do. We can't not experience it. So in trying to constantly percieve and rest in emptiness, we create yet another false duality between form and emptiness. It's like saying that the truth is truth whether we are aware of it or not. Our awareness of it does not change it. This stage is emptiness is emptiness, form is form. As dogen says in the genjokoan, when the moon (our realization) is reflected in the water (emptiness), the water does not get broken. But this doesn't mean that realization isn't important.

Right You said it better than I did.

That's interesting that you say that they are distinct experiences. When I looked into them deeper and deeper, I found that I couldn't separate any of them. They are all there in one moment together. You can't really experience anatta (non-inherency of background) without experiencing emptiness and you can't really experience emptiness without experiencing dependent arising/maha. By the way, have you had any strange physical or mental changes since your realizations? If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I understand. Just curious.

I was not saying that emptiness was true or false, but simply asking you if your experiences were in accord with the ones I have had at times.

I would say that is the opposite. The only thing that "joints" it is what we believe to be a persisting, independent identity. A continuing background which doesn't exist. That is, each moment is it's own thing. There is no persisting "I" in two different moments. But there is a causal continuity between moments.

But Xabir, I did want to ask you, I believe you have had realization of emptiness and thus have had the experience of emptiness in real-time? Could you describe that experience to me? Personally, when I have experienced emptiness, it is like being everything and nothing at once. One feels phenomena, mind and matter, coming together as the universe giving rise to this sight, this sound, etc. Yet at the same time one feels the universe coming together, one feels the emptiness of that manifestation - it's ungraspability, non true existence. When I say that one feels it, I mean that the seeing isn't conceptual -- one doesn't say to oneself "it's ungraspable ." But the seeing is still an awareness. And one sees that that awareness is itself empty. And the emptiness is not apart from that awareness. And one also feels that there is no agent connecting moments of manifestations. There are only the spontaneous, disjoint moments. Has this been your experience as well? One thing I always had trouble incorporating was that things simply happen by themselves. Do you know what I mean? How would you incorporate that into the above experiences? In regard to actual freedom, where would the PCE fall on thusness' stages? If anywhere?

Yes, the root cause of suffering is ignorance. But ignorance of what? A metaphysical truth? No, a habit of attachment. To anything -- situations, people, mentalities, places. And views -- of self, no self, all self, both self and no self. Attachment and aversion include attachment to knowledge/"truth" and aversion to ignorance. Personally, I sometimes view the anatta teachings as advising us to not even question whether there ultimately is a self or not. From my own practice, I have found that speculating over whether I really exist or not, in the end, just leads to entanglement, more questions and confusion. So even if you say that the self neither exists, doesn't exist, both or neither, you are still answering the question of self. And then you get into defining identity and that's shaky ground that I never felt comfortable with an answer to. On the other hand, the things I know for sure are that we experience five aggregates which are impermanent and dependently arisen, we at least believe that we have a self in our minds (and interact with others and speak as if we have a self), and there is suffering. These things are absolutely clear.

oops.

Am I clinging to freedom from clinging? That's the million dollar question. Let's find out. First, it's important to define suffering. Are loss, physical pain, ignorance, failure, death, fear, and old age suffering? Or is our reaction to them suffering? I would say that it is the reaction. All those things are facts of life. No matter how much we want to avoid them, we can't. But what we can change is our mental reaction to them. We can accept that these things are inevitable in our lives when they do come at some point and yet still work to reduce them as much as we can; or we can be averse to them ever entering our lives. The latter is what I believe causes suffering. I'm not saying that people who don't even have clean water to drink or a place to go to the bathroom should just suck it up and accept their lot. It's ok to have preferences and to try to get what we want, but we can't always get what we want. That is suffering and clinging. The thing is that it seems that whatever way the mind moves, it clings. It can cling to truth, or it can turn around and cling to not clinging to truth. This is why the problem of suffering is so difficult. Any effort by the mind to reduce suffering whether by a method/practice or by taking up a certain position only increases suffering. It drives the mind into another comfort zone. The effort is the mind's attempt to find security and a permanent pattern to live in. Then impermanent reality inevitably comes and upsets the pattern. So what is the way out? It seems to me that the way out is to simply be aware of undesirable emotions as they arise, not to try to force them out. Simply to see their cause (seeking permanence) as they manifest. And in that seeing, these undesirables fade on their own. Does this mean that they will never return? No. This seeing is impermanent and so there are going to be moments when we are unaware. In these moments, fear will arise again but when we turn our mind to it and see its cause, it will fade. And then it will return, fade again, and so on. So the surface emotion will never be gotten rid of altogether. But the negative reaction to it can be. Herein lies the difference between me and Xabir and Vajra. We both start from the position of wanting to end suffering. We both believe that realizing some truth is going to end our suffering. They think that realizing truths about what we are, what reality really is, consciousness, what the universe is, etc. is going to end their suffering. I think that all that is unneccessary and all we need to know the end our suffering is some psychology coupled with a few simple ontological facts. They have to be aware of emptiness to be liberated. They believe that it is vidya (or the knowledge of emptiness) that liberates. So they seek and search for that state of vidya itself. I see that one can be completely ignorant of emptiness and still be liberated, because it is not the state of one's mind that matters, but the reaction to that state. If you can't be free being ignorant of emptiness, you'll never be free knowing it. Take Bob for example. Bob is a disgruntled factory worker who has been dealt a bad hand by life. One day, Bob decides to quit his job and go on a spiritual quest to find the truth of the universe and peace through it. Only when he can find that truth will he be happy. Bob goes to all the spiritual teachers and gurus. And they all tell him what they believe to be true. And he investigates and searches his mind and inquires. And he travels everywhere. And he dies, still unsatisfied with life because he hadn't found the answers he was looking for. But if Bob had just woken up and smelt the roses and seen that wanting and obsessing over some special state to the exclusion of all other states in order to be happy was the cause of his unhappiness, he wouldn't have needed all those teachers and gurus and he could have lived a long life in peace. So am I clinging? No. Because I'm not depending on any one state to rest in to the exclusion of all others in order to be free. I know that no one state by itself liberates. The awareness that no one state by itself liberates is what truly liberates. My intention when negative states arise is not to eliminate them, but to simply be aware of their cause (wanting some other state to be permanent) in the moment. And then, with that intelligence, those negative states fade on their own. I don't think Xabir is exactly like me. Xabir has his own experiences, his own life, his own way of interpreting things, his own culture. But at the heart of it all, he's still human like me and he is capable of the same suffering for the same reasons that I am.

Yes, I agree that once it is seen it cannot be unseen. Just go,back to MCTB and read the sections on the fundamental and specific perception models. He says that even though this is a truth which cannot be forgotten, seeing that truth will never be your dominant mode of consciousness all the time,

I'm very focused on aversion. Aversion is contained within clinging, it's the natural implication of it. You cling to happiness; therefore you are averse to pain. I do believe that it is possible to be free from clinging. You just can't do it by seeking a permanent state free from clinging. I wouldn't say that I go that far in my belief. I'm not some paranoid person thinking everyone is clinging and is in some conspiracy together to lie to me about it. But I know it when I see it. And when someone goes on and on about wanting this or that, some realization of the truth to be permanent, or wanting to eliminate one half of reality in favor of another, that is a definite red flag.

Can you give me a link to where he says these things? A quote at least? And I never said that it is impossible to be free of craving. But you can't do it by wanting to be free of craving.

Well I haven't really gotten many of my insights from him... He's just very good at cutting through all the bullshit beliefs that people have regarding spiritual practice in general and Buddhism.

Because a Buddha is perfect, right? And I'm just a human being, of course. I don't know if you know who Daniel Ingram is, but if you don't, you should seek out his book "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha" and just go through and read what he has to say throughout about this belief that enlightenment will somehow make you a perfect, flawless god-being. Particularly the section on the various models of enlightenment. The book comes up as a pdf if you search for it on google as like the second result. Xabir, wherever you are, I know you are familiar with Daniel Ingram and you should go back to his book and do the same thing.

Yes, I said that I accept that. But I don't accept that my mind (the inevitable filter through which I see that) will always accept it. I can't accept that my mind will ever be in a permanent state of moment to moment acceptance toward that. I have seen that it can't be. Because my mind has accepted it then rejected it, accepted it then rejected it and accepted it again.

Well impermanence isn't a dharma that could be empty. It's a condition of dharmas. In an objective sense -- as in impermanence is itself empty and ungraspable (not existent, non existent, both or neither) because as a concept it is dependent on permanence and therefore doesn't have any own being -- certainly. To the percieving mind, I do at the moment and I may not tomorrow. Either one is ok.

Right, I have said that the truth is independent of what you think. Yes Xabir, but that realization is not permanent in the sense that it will be there every day of your life, every moment. This is what you are trying to convince me of. If you believe that, then you have not really read what you have quoted and you don't fully understand and/or want to accept impermanence.

Permanent freedom from psychological suffering is logically impossible in an interdependent universe! If a Buddha did not see/percieve what you describe he/she percieves in the above paragraph, he/she would suffer. Are you telling me that a Buddha is incapable of percieving anything other than what is written in that paragraph? If you say yes, then you are telling me that a Buddha's perception is not subject to change and is independent. It is self existent and permanent.

Maybe it would help if I stated what I believe Samsara to be. True Samsara, to me, is not contained within the seeing of emptiness that a Buddha has. Because in that seeing, even though there are painful things, there is liberation from them. So they are really not painful at all. Real Samsara is a mind state ignorant of emptiness. Then pain is really pain and suffering is really suffering. Here there is no liberation from them. Just the raw fact of them.

I quote you from before: "The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that." When they say that, they mean that it is ok whether your mind is samsaric or Buddhic. Clinging to the samsara mind or the buddha mind both create suffering. My whole point. I'm not in conflict with your views. My view embraces your views, but sees just a bit beyond them.

1.)The state of mind of a Buddha is freedom, as your description clearly reveals here. One state of mind. Here, in this state of mind, samsara is nirvana. Everything is seen as empty yet present. One in this state of mind is free from suffering even while experiencing it. 2.) Everything you bolded from my post is outside of that particular state of mind. A different state of mind. Here there is confusion, pain, ignorance, etc. Meaning that 1 is different than 2. right?

Here is the heart of the whole matter I have been trying to get at. You and Xabir are craving a constant state of freedom. This is what Seung Sahn calls "attachment to freedom" in his Zen Circle teaching. Attachment to freedom is 270 degrees. You and Xabir have just one more step to go to get to 360. You cannot possibly have a constant state of freedom. You only call it freedom because there is suffering to contrast it to. If there were no suffering, freedom would be meaningless. Sooner or later you are going to have to face Samsara. You are going to be ignorant, you are going to be foolish, you are going to feel pain, you are going to suffer loss, you are going to cry, you are going to be vulnerable -- you are going to suffer. It would contradict the very beliefs of dependent arising that you rest on. And without the relative, the ultimate falls apart.

I am not talking about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is objective. It cannot change. Yes. It is set in stone. I am talking about your mind.

Right, it has never changed. It has always been empty. Forever. But your perception of it has changed. Hasn't it?

No, it has to do with a permanent intuitive awareness. A self existent state of mind, by your own words.