thuscomeone

Ok, lets start here. You believe that emptiness = appearances and appearances = emptiness right? That emptiness makes all things possible. And emptiness is basically equivalent to impermanence, right? Meaning that phenomena are empty because they are impermanent? Realize that I am not ignoring the truth of these things, I am trying to get at something else which is very subtle. No, I'm trying to convince him of a tendency to cling that he has. By the truth of dependent arising, he cannot possibly remain in that realized state forever! It is basic impermanence.

Hi. All I am trying to say to xabir is that wisdom cannot be with ignorance and doubt. It is the dependent nature of things. Would you agree? He does not seem to want to recognize that.

I do still suffer. You are right. But I know why I suffer now. I am awakened to the truth of suffering. Yes. You are the last person that should criticize someone for believing views simply on authority. Most of what you have written about "awareness" and such is meaningless garbage which it sounds like you stole from xabir's blog, namdrol, and some article about dzogchen. I am convinced that you don't have a clue what half of it means. You are also incapable of forgiving. Yes I did misquote at least one sutta because of a wrong belief I had on impermanence that I came into the thread with. We have moved past that for the last probably 10 pages and you still continue to bring it up. Get over it. I do know the difference between anicca and anatta. I have told you what anatta means. Given you the exact translation and you still push your on view onto it. I have clearly pointed out that it translates to no permanent self. And anicca obviously means impermanence. Yes, there is a difference. But let's see here, anatta = no permanent self and annica means impermanence. Hmmm sherlock, do you see a connection there?

Saying that you will never become deluded or doubtful is a pipe dream. You are saying that your realization cannot be affected. You are saying that it is not subject to change. According to your own belief in dependent arising, logically, wisdom cannot be without ignorance. What if you did get deluded by self-views, though? What would you do? Regardless of how fast or slow it changes, your realization has the potential to change. Everything does. That means that it is possible for ignorance to creep in. It is possible for your realization to fall apart. And you will push that ignorance that creeps in out via your realizations. Correct? Just as I said, you are craving for permanence.

Are your realizations permanent or impermanent? Can there be realization/wisdom without ignorance? I quote Shunryu Suzuki from Zen Mind Beginner's Mind again for you "Suppose you suffer from an illness like cancer and you realize you cannot live more than two or three years. Then you will start practice because it is difficult to rely on something. And someone may rely on the help of God. Someone may start the practice of zazen and his practice will be concentrated on obtaining the emptiness or all things. We naturally…originally we are empty beings. That means he is trying to be free from the suffering of duality (this life, or next life, or this life). This is the practice of form is emptiness or emptiness is form.Because that is true so we want to have that actual realization in our life. But of course this practice will help you and if you practice it and believe in it that is true, and if you…and realizing that to be concerned about this life or that life is wrong, still you are making effort.That is, maybe, that will help you, of course, but that is not perfect practice. Knowing that his life is just two or three years time to enjoy day after day, moment after moment that is the life is form is form and emptiness is emptiness. When Buddha comes you will welcome him; when devil comes you will welcome him. Like Woman said, ‘Sun-faced Buddha, and Moon-faced Buddha.” When he was ill someone asked him, “How about you?” And he said, “Sun-faced Buddha and Moon-faced Buddha”. That is the life of form is form and emptiness is emptiness. There is no problem. One year of his life is good. One hundred years of life is good. If you continue our practice you will attain this stage. But at first you will have various problems in your practice and it necessary for you to make some effort to continue our practice. Practice without effort is not true practice for the beginner. For the beginner the practice needs effort. So whatever we do that is practice-- that is Zen. So it does not matter whether you practice or not…that kind of understanding is completely mistaken. If you continue, whatever you do, that is practice. If you do it everything with this purpose and this idea that is practice."

I never said I came out of them in the sense that I don't believe them to be true anymore. I came out of them in the sense that I saw they they didn't end suffering. I've had transformative changes too. If I told you that they included clairvoyance at times, you probably wouldn't believe me. I've had the extreme bliss as well. Were these experiences from the insights on the blog, or just from strong focus in meditation? I don't know. Either way, they weren't that important anyway. As they are all impermanent. Sure it's a sharing. And it's a nice sharing. But it doesn't give the full answer to the most important question that the Buddha asked. Impermanence is not an ontological statement. It is not a statement about any "objective reality", but about what we experience. Right, our view of reality. And if we see the real cause of suffering (craving permanence), we can stop it.

I never said that I went through the 7 stages in succession -- one right after the other. I completely went out of order, but I did go through all of them. You don't think the understanding came from my own inquiry and meditation? You have no idea. Yes, it is his blog that is at fault. Are you not concerned with suffering? "How is that experience?" I don't care. The reason I am so concerned with impermanence is that is deeply related to suffering. To understand suffering, you only need to know a few facts about life. Impermanence is one of them.

As far as I can see, I made two errors regarding impermanence and dependent arising in the beginning of the thread. And I admitted both of them. I said that the Buddha denied dependent arising. I have admitted my mistake already, as you can see if you actually have been reading my posts. You have been avoiding talking about suffering every time I try to bring up the topic. It has been all I have been trying to do. You have not pointed out any flaws so far in my view of impermanence as it relates to suffering. You continue to linger on errors which I have already admitted. Impermanence is a very simple view. So simple that you would think it is too simple. Most people know it, but they don't really know it -- within the context of their own suffering. You want the Buddha to be some almighty being, so you can't possibly believe his insight all came down to the phrase "things change." You'd be surprised. I'll tell you how I can declare the Buddha was like this or that. The Buddha's teachings on suffering are exactly correspondent to the things I have discovered in my own life.

The problem I have with the idea that the truth itself will be set you free and end your suffering is that the truth may be unpleasant. As in Sisyphus who was doomed to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity. No, the truth is simply there. The truth could be anything -- It is one's reaction to the truth that causes suffering.

Look, it's pointless to try and teach me this. I've been all through Xabir's blog -- through all seven stages in fact in about two and a half years time. I have been in the frame of my mind where I have believed Xabir's writings to be true, and I have been in the frame of mind of believing them to be false. Do I believe them to be true? Some yes and some no. One thing that was clear after all the ontological and metaphysical speculation, after I traversed the 7 stages, was that I was still suffering. The truths on his blog did not set me free. They only binded me further and confused me more. In the end, Xabir's blog did nothing to relieve my suffering. So you can speculate about the nature of awareness all you want, but it is ultimately not what is important.

I know it's pointless to jab at people's fears. I just tend to get frustrated when they are so blatant and the person that I am arguing with can't bring him self to admit them. Not to sound condescending, but I wanted to help Xabir because I saw a tendency to crave permanence that he has which is going to bring a lot of pain into his life. I think the Buddha was probably full of himself at times. But if he was really enlightened as to the nature of suffering (which I think he was), I think he was probably pretty humble too.

Right. Everyone has preferences. I don't believe that we can or should do away with them. Suffering comes, I believe, from our refusal to accept that one day we will inevitably have to encounter what we don't prefer. Xabir, for instance, clings to his realizations and his wisdom and doesn't seem to understand that some day he will have to encounter ignorance and confusion. And he doesn't want to admit that because he is afraid of those things. Thus, for all his quoting the Buddha, he doesn't really understand impermanence or dependent arising. I don't believe the Buddha was perfect at all. He was imperfect like we all are. These stories about Buddha as some sort of super human perfect god being are bullshit because they still show ignorance of the Buddha's most basic teachings of inconstance.

But you yourself have an absolute view that there are no absolutes! Can't you see that? Yes I am aware of the circular tendency to cling. You accuse me of this, yet you do the same thing. You are looking for something to cling to to cease your clinging I.e. some ultimate answer. We all are. My question is: how do we get out of that vicious cycle? The answer I have found is to try to not cling to an answer. That is what I was trying to tell xabir. But you will say again that I am clinging to another answer. But actually I am not. The way out of the cycle isn't through finding truth and clinging to it. Believe me. It is through simply being aware of the tendency in real time without trying to change it. Because if you wish to change it, you get caught in it again. And there is no awareness that is aware. It is thought that is aware of thought. I have been through that, looking for some kind of super awareness, and seen it for what it is. If this other awareness exists, where is it?

So you prefer the thought that they are baseless and illusory to the thought that they are real! The thought gives you comfort. Otherwise you wouldn't argue for it. Maybe this quote from Shunryu Suzuki'sZen Mind Beginner's Mind will help illustrate what I am tryin to say: "As long as you are concerned about what you do, that is dualistic. If you are not concerned about what you do you will not say so. When you sit, you will sit. When you eat you will eat. That’s all. If you say it doesn’t, it means that you are making some excuse to something by your own way. It means you are attached to something especially. That is not what we mean, but just to sit, or whatever you do that is zazen. Whatever we do that is zazen. If it is so there is no need to say so. So when you sit you will just sit without being disturbed by your painful legs or sleepiness. That is zazen. But at first it is very difficult to accept things as they are. You feel some…you will be annoyed by the feeling your have in your practice. When you can do everything, whether it is good or bad, you can do it without disturbance or without being annoyed by the feeling that is actually what we mean by form is form and emptiness is emptiness. Suppose you suffer from an illness like cancer and you realize you cannot live more than two or three years. Then you will start practice because it is difficult to rely on something. And someone may rely on the help of God. Someone may start the practice of zazen and his practice will be concentrated on obtaining the emptiness or all things. We naturally…originally we are empty beings. That means he is trying to be free from the suffering of duality (this life, or next life, or this life). This is the practice of form is emptiness or emptiness is form. Because that is true so we want to have that actual realization in our life. But of course this practice will help you and if you practice it and believe in it that is true, and if you…and realizing that to be concerned about this life or that life is wrong, still you are making effort. That is, maybe, that will help you, of course, but that is not perfect practice. Knowing that his life is just two or three years time to enjoy day after day, moment after moment that is the life is form is form and emptiness is emptiness. When Buddha comes you will welcome him; when devil comes you will welcome him. Like Woman said, ‘Sun-faced Buddha, and Moon-faced Buddha.” When he was ill someone asked him, “How about you?” And he said, “Sun-faced Buddha and Moon-faced Buddha”. That is the life of form is form and emptiness is emptiness. There is no problem. One year of his life is good. One hundred years of life is good. If you continue our practice you will attain this stage. But at first you will have various problems in your practice and it necessary for you to make some effort to continue our practice. Practice without effort is not true practice for the beginner. For the beginner the practice needs effort. So whatever we do that is practice-- that is Zen. So it does not matter whether you practice or not…that kind of understanding is completely mistaken. If you continue, whatever you do, that is practice. If you do it everything with this purpose and this idea that is practice." My whole point is that xabir is relying on his realizations of emptiness or "ultimate truth" as a basis for peace in his life. What he does not understand is that even his realizations that he clings to are impermanent and inconstant. They are just as subject to change as everything else is. And what did the Buddha say about that which is impermanent? It should not be clung to. Xabir does not fully understand impermanence.

No, my ego hasn't taken damage. But your right, my logic has. I was trying go point out a tendency to xabir, but he was dodging my questions and refusing to see it. And yet you see things as an absolute yes or no as well. You're right and I'm wrong. You guys do not understand this simple explanation I am giving you. Let me ask you. Do you find comfort in certain thoughts? Do you understand that thoughts change?

Aha! You admit it. Finally. Then I quote myself from before: If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind. Ergo, you are clinging to a subtle permanence. Goodnight.

Would you ever argue to prove the truth of no self? If someone said it wasn't true? Have you ever argued for the truth of no self on this board before? Yes or no.

And you are trying to prove that you are right and I am wrong? Correct? Yes or no? Just yes or no. If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind. Therefore you are clinging to a subtle permanence.

Are you arguing with me right now? Are you trying to prove a point? Just give me a simple yes or no.

Xabir... Are your thoughts capable of changing? Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self" All I am saying is that you can't have the same thought forever. And you are trying to. But you don't see it.

Again, you dodged my questions. Come on xabir, this is dependent arising 101. The thought "there is no self" cannot be without the thought "there is a self." They are dependent. Correct? Just please say yes. For God's sake.

I'm just going to say this again as we are getting nowhere: Please, please answer this directly and honestly. I am not asking the Buddha, I am asking you. Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?" The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable. And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Right? Don't be dishonest. And why is that? Because you want the former thought to be permanent when it is actually completely impermanent.

Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?" The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable. And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Because you want the former thought to be permanent. Again, you need to step away from the content of your thoughts and look at the way they manifest. With your thoughts about anatta, you are clinging to a very subtle permanent self in the form of impermanent thought. Whether you see it or not.

Of course you attempt to bring it up. You are doing it right now in arguing with me. Can you not see that? You are caught up in the content of your thoughts, and cannot see their impermanent/inconstant nature.

You dodged my questions. Whether it is an ontological fact that the self is unfindable, "the self is unfindable" is nevertheless a thought in your mind, is it not? Yes, it is obvious that you do cling to it as you continue to argue for it. Let me ask you again, do you want the thought "there is no such self" to persist in your mind? Do you attempt to bring up that thought and block out all other thoughts that aren't it? Does the thought give you comfort?