thuscomeone

thusness doesn't know everything, xabir. Neither do you, even if you think you do. Hell, thusness doesn't even seem to know what a concept is and isn't. Neither do you. I saw your recent post on dharmawheel when namdrol told you that the two truths aren't true. What do you think that means, xabir?

No, xabir. You are stuck in the muck of the intellect and yet you think you are free. You can't see your own chains because you don't understand what concepts are. You think you are free from views, but anyone with half a brain can see from reading your posts that that is just not true.

...

You think that you aren't attached to dependent arising...but you are. You say "is" and "is not" do not apply. But look at how many times you write reality "is" this, is empty, is dependent, etc. in your posts. See, you are correct in saying that "is" and "is not" do not apply. But you don't really understand why they don't apply. You think they don't apply because reality "is" a certain way -- is empty, is dependent. And by saying this, you are contradicting yourself. Actually, the reason that "is" and "is not" do not apply is that descriptions -- which all suppose is or is not --cannot touch the bare fact of experience. It isn't because things are "dependently arisen." That would be holding onto another description.

Yes, you do establish dependent arising. You take it to be "what is" -- an absolute description of the nature of reality. I can see it in your posts. "what is" or the actual (that act of walking down the street) is beyond all descriptions -- including dependent arising. And if this is true, why continue to argue for dependent arising?

Ok, they are not the same according to you. You are basically saying that the description is not the described. You see this, yet you then say that things as they actually are are "dependently arisen." Do you see the contradiction? There is no "dependent arising" during that act of walking down the street, is there? And if there isn't, why hold onto "dependent arising"?

Ok, so when you are walking down the street and then you say "my walking down the street was dependently arisen", is that verbalization the same as that act of walking down the street?

...

Ok, that's a good start. Now take it further. When you are walking down the street, is that act conceptual or before concepts? And is the concept "I am walking down the street" the same as the actual fact of walking?

Xabir, tell me, in your own words, what is a concept and what is not a concept? I don't think you really know the difference.

My god, Xabir. You are so trapped in your own view. You claim that my insights are wrong. Yet, guess what? My insights are the truth of what you claim to have realized -- "emptiness is form." You are ignorant even of the truth you claim to know. You have not seen what emptiness is form is pointing to. You are still ignorant of it. Every response you type up is the same thing. Same quotes, same repetitive words. You have gone far, but not far enough. I knew you would claim that I'm being a substantialist. When I alk about "this", it is talking about YOU. For gods sake, man. You can't even see your own nose in front of your face. YOU are the most undeniable fact that there is. Seeing, hearing, smelling, thinking. These are undeniable. But these facts are beyond and before concepts."The eternal now" is referring to presence, being. It is before ANY description -- including d.o. Whatever you want to call it. It's just a fact. To me, right now, you don't understand much. You don't understand 1.) The nature of the self. This is the most important thing. 2.) How attachment to the content of any thought is what creates the self. 3.) Time as attachment to concepts in relation to the timeless as beyond attachment to concepts. 4.) The nature of suffering as attachment to concepts. Which creates time, becoming, suffering, division, comparison. Fear, anxiety, stress, etc. 5.) "rebirth" as #4 above 6.) And most embarassing, is that you don't even understand d.o. The very "truth" that you incessantly preach here. You don't get that it is NOT truth, it is NOT how things are. It is NOT a fact. It is skillful means that lead you beyond it. Again, JUST skillful means. And how don't get how d.o. leads to seeing 1-5 above.

I was blind before, vaj. But now I can see your true face. You don't see what is right in front of you. You go and and on about d.o. and the cosmos, rebirth, etc. None of that matters. It's all in time and can't touch what is timeless. And what is timeless is staring you in the face. At this point, I'm not sure you've ever had an experience or real realization of rigpa. Past and future don't matter in that. Rebirth, who cares? If you keep thinking about that, you'll continue to be caught in the cycle of becoming You are caught in concepts, as many others on this board have pointed put. If you ever want to see nakedly, you're going to have to drop d.o. and everything else you go on about. This is not a jhana that I'm talking about. Although you will continue to claim that it is. It is beyond jhanas and beyond d.o. Dzogchen doesn't endlessly hold on to d.o. as you claim and advocate. That would be called being caught in sems. I'm not even a dzogchen practioner and even I know this. Frankly, I think your endless harping on about rebirth is just instilling fear in people and only serving to move them further away from the natural state, which is only now and has absolutely nothing to do with later.

Was the statement above by you a living reality itself or just an idea? Is there such thing as "skull", "mind" or "perception" outside of concepts? Is eating pizza more than eating pizza? When you scoop up some water from the sea and hold it in your hand, is it any longer the sea?

There is no "relative" and "absolute" outside of your skull. Getting up and walking around, reading the words on this page, scarfing down some pizza. Where are relative and absolute there?

I think we fight it because it's our nature to do do. It's our nature to have preferences and believe in illusions. To prefer happiness to suffering. I don't believe we should get rid of this or try to. Rather, we just have to integrate it with what is beyond it. When we see the "big", then and only then does the "small" truly fall into place.

I think the biggest problem of spiritual seekers is that they seek too much. And because of that, they are always running away from what is right in front of their faces.

Right? This is a perfect example.

It's funny, because what I'm talking about is the natural result of full realization of what "emptiness is form" is pointing to. But d.o., anatta, etc. are not facts about the nature of reality as you claim them to be. They are just pointers. When I came to this realization, I saw that I could abandon all other views. Because only this is true. And that truth doesn't depend on d.o., anatta. The truth is just non-conceptual, timeless suchness. But remember, these are only words. They don't capture it. You need to see that it is concepts themselves (when clung to) that create the self. Not just one particular concept. There are no facts about the nature of reality, except for the fact of that which is before concepts. Oh, you are wrong. Concepts themselves, or rather entanglement in concepts, is the entire problem. "what is" is beyond time in that it is always now. It's been called the eternal now. Concepts create time and past, present and future. From this, there arises the false idea of becoming, getting something. And then suffering. "Now that I have experienced that tada is itself great perfection, I can at last repay your countless benefactions, and I am overjoyed." - Yaeko Iwasaki (Footnote by Philip Kapleau): Literally "only," "just," "nothing but." Thus if one is eating, one must be absorbed in just eating. If the mind entertains any ideas or concepts during eating, it is not in tada. Every moment of life lived as tada is the eternal Now. -- From Yaeko Iwasaki's Enlightenment letters to Harada-roshi and his Comments, The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau "So, we are saying, to eliminate this conflict, psychologically, it's very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed. If he is not, then the observer is the observed, and therefore conflict ends. I'll explain, go into this a little more. I hope you are working with the speaker, that you're not merely listening to a series of words, ideas, conclusions, but rather using the speaker, the words, as a mirror in which you are seeing actually yourself. So that you are aware of yourself, because we're talking about human being, which is you. That human being is the story of the totality of mankind. And when you investigate that, when you look at it, you see the conflict has always existed between man and woman, between... in himself. So part of this meditation is to eliminate totally all conflict, inwardly, and therefore outwardly. And to eliminate this conflict, one has to understand this basic principle, which is, the observer is not different from the observed, psychologically. Are we meeting each other? Yes? Do you see the fact, not the acceptance of what I'm saying? Look, when there is anger, there is no 'I', but a second later the thought creates the 'I' and says, 'I have been angry', and there is the idea that I should not be angry. So there is 'me' who have been angry, and I should not be angry, so the division brings conflict. I hope you understand this. Please. I hope you understand this because we are going to something which demands that you pay complete attention to this, which is the essence of meditation, and to eliminate totally, completely every form of conflict, otherwise there is no peace in the world. You may have peace in heaven, but actually to live in this world with complete inward peace, therefore every action is born out of that peace. So it's very important to understand that the observer is the observed. When that takes place - please listen - that is, one is jealous - of which you all know - one is jealous; is jealousy different from the observer? You understand my question? Or the observer is the observed, therefore he is jealous. There is not 'I am jealous', but there is only jealousy. Right? Then what takes place? You understand? Before, there was division between me and jealousy, and then I tried to conquer it, I tried to suppress it, rationalise it, put away from, but now when I see the 'me' is jealous - right? - then what takes place? Before, I tried to conquer it, suppress it, understand it, rationalise it, or say, 'Yes, why shouldn't I be jealous?' And therefore in all that process there is conflict. Whereas, we are saying, when there is no division between the observer and the observed, and therefore only the thing that is, which is jealousy, then what takes place? Does jealousy go on? Or is there a total ending of jealousy? You understand my problem, my question? I wonder. When jealousy occurs, when there is no observer, you let it blossom and then end. You understand the question? Like a flower that blooms, withers and dies away. But as long as you're fighting it, as long as you're resisting it or rationalising it, you're giving life to it. So we are saying that the observer is the observed, and when there is this jealousy, let it... when the observer is the observed then jealousy blossoms, grows, and naturally dies. And therefore there is no conflict in it. I wonder if you see this. Right, sir? Please, madame." -J. Krishnamurti http://www.jkrishnam...32&w=meditation What K is talking about here is the exact same practice advocated by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta

Yeah, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. As to what I'm talking about, I wouldn't say that it is a distortion in and of itself. But when you conceptualize it, yes, it does become a distortion. And anytime you speak of it, you therefore must distort it. When I say "the five skandhas", I mean those as merely pointing to something. To the pure fact of experience which cannot be described. But to me, it isn't a distortion at all. It's the clearest possible thing there is. In your case, you're calling it a "light." That too is a distortion. This is the problem, we all want to call it something. And in that naming, there is division and then, time, becoming, suffering... The Satipatthana Sutta provides the clearest example of what I'm talking about.

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. It is very, very hard to express. The best I can do is say that it is the bare fact, or "isness" as you say. The bare fact of the one's experience. Thinking, seeing, hearing, walking. All these acts occur prior to conceptualization and cannot be put into words. Any concept distorts the act. The fact of "what is" does not require conceptualization. One simply needs to put one's attention on it. Actually, I would say that while it is beyond views, it also includes the acts of "view-ing" or "conceptualiz-ing." Just the pure happening of these acts.

This is just it. Xabir and I have shared many insights. He is at the point now where he's starting to see that concepts and views are the problem. But he doesn't yet realize that he still clings to views. Now, people ask how you can be free from views. Isn't that just another view? No, there is something beyond views which isn't another view. What is it? Just the fact of your experience. Just the skandhas pre-conceptualization. Just pure activity. That's timeless. Oh, and guess what. "D.O." has NOTHING to do with it. As soon as you call it "d.o." or "no self", you distort it.

Of course, conventionally it's just you as a human being and your five skandhas. Ultimately...can't say. that was pretty good. "oneness." I think it's a perfect description of the debates on this forum. Nonsense, getting nowhere

Ok, if I had to say where I'm at right now: is and is not don't apply leads to emptiness as form is YOU, just you. Reality is nothing more than the skandhas functioning. Not as a noun. As a verb. leads to ANY concept/thought when taken to be "what is" distorts what is

Because even "not is or is not" can be clung to as a concept. This is really hard to explain. What "not is or is not" leads you to is seeing that YOU embody emptiness is form. From this, at least for me, there was yet another realization about concepts in context of emptiness is form beyond the "not is or is not" one. Not is or is not is another step to something else. I don't know. Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways. But I'm viewing it from the anatta perspective and you're seeing it from emptiness as d.o. perspective...?

I am just not sure if this is the same as what I'm saying. As I see it, there are two levels of duality: The duality of inherent existence vs impermanence and the duality of the content of concepts themselves 1 points to and leads to 2. I don't know. I don't get much regarding 2 from your blog.