thuscomeone

You don't really understand what I mean by mind. The mind is not non-duality.

 

Further, the reason I talk about mind the way I do is because of the skillful means. I am saying that the mind is deathless, and by saying that, I am suggesting that every person has access to the deathless because every person has a mind. This is skillful because it makes the whole of truth and immortality something intimate and personal right from the start. There is no need to jump into some mysterious otherworldly experience to get in touch with the deathless (although it can help to put things in perspective if you do).

 

 

 

That's not true. Buddha himself talked about it.

 

Read this:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

 

And then tell me if Buddha has violated the entire dharma in that Sutta.

 

 

 

If I pointed you to it, would you be looking for it as an object of some kind?

 

 

 

That's stupid. Universe is not the totality. A universe is equivalent to a realm in Buddhism. Realms are partial and relative arisings. In other words, there are countless universes instead of just one. Mind is greater than universe in scope. Bodhisattva's mind can go from one universe to another.

 

Also, most people conceive the Universe to be a collection of knowns, such as stars, nebulas, black holes and other things we can observe and interact with. The mind is infinitely vaster than any collection of knowns.

Universe as in, not the total universe of course, but as in non-separation between mind and matter. It's not a good word, but it's more vague than mind, so it works better here.

Ok, were not going to get anywhere if you don't tell me what you mean by "mind." So tell me.

In that sutta, he is not referring to mind as such. He is referring to the deathless which includes mind, but is also beyond mind. The unborn.

It's a fucked up source with fucked up numbering.

 

Here's the real link: http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp

 

8:253.

 

What's the error in 8:253? The error is asserting a relative condition (plants having the same awareness as humans) as if it were ultimate. A plant may sometimes have an awareness similar to a human, in some realm, under some conditions, etc... But to assert that's how it really is, it is always like this and only like this, that's wrong.

 

8:253 does not contradict 1:165, does it?

 

Read 1:165 and get back to me. Use the link I gave you and avoid Xabir's blog next time.

"True mind" is in the same vein as tathagatagarbha. People mistakenly think it's implying a self-existent, cosmic awareness. It's referring to an unborn, infinite potential -- emptiness.

I accept appearance of dualism. I don't accept dualism as something more than an appearance, as something substantial and true in and of itself, independent of mind, etc.

Dualism and non-dualism are equally invalid. If you claim that things are all of one non-dual mind, you are still still implying dualism. Calling this non-duality "mind" is an error. Calling it anything implies dualism. So first, things are not dual. This means that there is no "something."

Now if there is no something, there can be anything. Anything is possible. There is no obstruction. Things can arise, change, have their own properties, function, and interact. So to not call this anything would also be wrong. So things are not non-dual either. This means there is no "nothing."

Things are not the same and not different, not existent and not non-existent. Not both and not neither.

The Buddha's entire dharma is based on dependent arising. Because a chair arises dependently, there is no chair. Because there is no chair, the chair can arise dependently.

To imply, as you do, that there is a self-existent, independent, unchanging awareness which is the source of everything is not only wrong, but it violates the entire dharma and reduces it to hinduism. An implication such as yours, that there is such an awareness, is rife with logical inconsistencies. For instance, if there were such an awareness, how could anything arise from it? This would require it to interact in some way with its creations. It would require this awareness to change. If it could change, that means it is not independent. If it is not independent, it does not truly exist. It is empty just like everything else.

But please, if such an awareness exists, point me to it.

Oh yeah, and when mind is spoken of in the context of non-duality, it is not really referring to "mind," but to the whole -- mind plus matter. It would be better just to call it "universe."

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp

 

This is the link to the Sutra.

The difference?

Not interested in Xabir's blog. Xabir is ignorant in my view. Try Surangama Sutra next time.

Notice the link. It is the sutra.

When you search in this way you are searching for an object of some sort.

 

 

 

Let me correct what you write:

 

"if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit the appearance of thoughts. Thoughts create the appearance of dualism. You must accept the apparent dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm the appearance of multiplicity."

 

Also you can replace "appearance of" with "experience of", which means the same thing, but might sound better for you.

 

 

 

Don't take it literally. It means "no idea of mind." Not "no mind" in the literal sense. When you let go of all your conceptions of mind you are said to have no mind. In other words, your mind abides free of conception of itself.

No, it's clear that you must accept dualism if you accept thoughts. You are using a red herring here by rewording me. If you say there is mind, you must accept there is something other than mind.

Not conceptually, not as an appearance. As a fact.

Can we have a quote?

From Xabir's blog:

"Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness."

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html?m=1

Further down on the page there is a dharma talk in which the teacher says that Buddha once told some monks not to consider awareness as the ultimate source.

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

As soon as you admit the concept of mind, you have to admit the concept of something other than mind. If you say it this way, I will agree.

 

But mind is not the concept of mind.

 

You hold an idea of what a mind is in your mind. If you let go of that idea the mind is still there in a relaxed condition. In other words, the mind is not any idea or belief that arises in it. The mind is thus hard to describe and hard to know properly.

Is there mind apart from perception, sensation, and thought? Well there is the alaya. But that's not the ultimate source. Where is a mind apart from these changing things?

What I'm saying is that, if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit thoughts. Thoughts create dualism. You must accept dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm multiplicity.

Since you seem to be fond of zen, this stage is known as "no mind."

Mind is the ultimate source of everything. You can say that the mind is the ultimate nature of everything. Or the nature of mind is the nature of everything. All these say the same thing.

 

 

 

Funny, because I often recommend Nagarjuna to physicalists. Remember, Nagarjuna is the monk who reputedly milked cow's portrait to get real milk.

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different.

As soon as you admit mind, you must admit something other than mind as well.

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done.

 

We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important.

 

Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them.

 

Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.

Provisional limitations? If you mean that emptiness has infinite potential to manifest, you're right. But it only has that infinite potential because it is limited. So I don't think that's what you mean.

There will always be limitations on the individual. Why? Because nobody exists alone. This is pretty basic. Your deal is that mind is the ultimate source of everything.

It's not.

You need to read nagarjuna.

That would be Solipsism.

 

Not Dependent Origination. We are co-creating.

Thank you. Some sense. Solipsism would mean that, since my self/mind is all there is, I should have no limitations on what I can do. I should be able to shoot a fireball out of my hand at will. I obviously can't do that. This is because I am limited -- Dependent arising.

Where is this lack you speak of?

The lack of understanding? Uh, in the discussion we're having?

Or do you want me to say the mind? In that case, it's located in a conventionally existent mind.

You didn't finish your analysis yet.

Not both, not neither..

What did I forget? Myself?

Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well.

There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

It depends on what you look for. When you try to find yourself, what are you looking for?

 

 

 

It's graspable if you don't grasp too tightly. Don't you see, that's the whole trick? People grasp identities because the grasp in a medium strength grip. At the same time, people make too many simplifications and their imaginations are impoverished. The sage sees this and the suffering it causes. How can we help? Well, there are tricks. Basically there are some lies we can tell people to free them. One lie is this: if you think you can grasp something, just grasp it as hard as you can! What happens? Well, when the person tries to grasp things way too hard, he or she gets exhausted and the fist naturally becomes limp after some time. So it's a way to get the person to leg go by lying and tricking the person. Of course if the person was not tricked into grasping way too hard, if the person continued a medium-strength grasp, the grasp would continue indefinitely.

 

As soon as you trick the person into loosening the hand, another disease starts. This new disease means the person now thinks nothing whatsoever can ever be held. So now you have to teach the person how to pick up objects and hold them. So you have to basically re-teach the same thing you tricked the person out of in the first place.

 

So what is the point of all this? The point is to eventually show the person that the hand is capable of this entire range of ability. Range is the key word. Grasping and non-grasping both fall within the range of ability. Neither ability is absolute. Grasping is not absolute. Non-grasping is also not absolute. Non-grasping only makes sense in contrast with grasping. The reason we can talk about non-grasping is because grasping is as real as non-grasping.

 

 

 

When I type this post, are you typing my post? No, you are not. When you type your post, am I typing it? No I am not. There is an obvious distinction between you and me. You need to face the truth of this. Don't run from it.

At the relative level, pre-analysis, there is obviously a distinction. Yes. But post-analysis, there is neither him nor you nor no him nor no you.

The emptiness of self is not a view as it does not assert or negate something about something. When realized there is a freedom from views relating to self. Simply put the non inherency of a self or agent lets us see 'there is' or 'is not' do not apply to subject, self, body, awareness etc. It is not a view to be clung to. It is simply the way things are - the way seeing is - without inherent seer. It should lead to comfort resting as the ungraspable stream of transient experiencing without clinging to an experiencer.

Yes. Or to put the path this way:

Seer=seeing=seen

and this dependent manifestation is not existent or non existent

It really helps in organizing to put emptiness of subject first and have it naturally expand from there to emptiness of object. One gradually sees deeper and deeper into dependent arising at each stage, and the division gets smaller and smaller, until its full implications are known at stage six.

I think I'm starting to see just how difficult it is to try and argue for the truth of the dharma. It requires a complete uprooting of deeply, deeply rooted assumptions. Many of which lie in the nature of language and thought itself.

to form a view about things is to land in the extremes of affirmation and negation... As you need to affirm something about something, it does not go beyond the extremes of 'there is' and 'is not'. Everything is a magical display, utterly unestablished and dream-like, from samsara to nirvana, apples, dependent origination, emptiness. While empty it vividly appears. This is not a contradiction but simply the way things are.

 

To cling to wisdom and right view means you have established that there is wisdom, there is right view. Heart sutra says, no attainment, no suffering and end of suffering, no ignorance and no wisdom.

 

Not even an emptiness.

 

Just a magical display... Where is and is not do not apply.

So what about anatta? Do those views have no validity either?

Sure, that magical display is dependent arising and infinite potentiality. Like I said to lucky, you can go too far. You don't need to negate dependent arising. Dependent arising is the basis for freedom from extremes. Without it, that falls apart. Dependent arising is the middle way -- not something and not nothing.

I think, like lucky, you are wrongly conflating absolute and relative here. At the relative level, there is right and wrong view. Generally speaking, all views are at the relative level. And some are more correct than others. But at the ultimate level, no view can capture it. There, the views are simply arising, ungraspable manifestations like everything else.

Yesterday, I made a chart of all the realizations starting from emptiness of subject to emptiness of object. Slowly they begin to expand outward. And yes, they start with view and come to a sort of "complete view" -- a complete map, and then, at the last stage, the map is dropped.

It sounds as if this Roshi had Taoist parents.

Ha. Probably.

It's from "the three pillars of zen" by Phillip Kapleau Roshi. In the section on Yaeko Iwasaki's enlightenment letters. A beautiful account of awakening if there ever was one.

Thrill? You're scaring the fuck out of Vaj. He doesn't like you questioning him or "his" tradition. He's merged with Buddhism to such an extent now, that if you question Buddhism you are questioning Vaj's own being. He's freaked that you are destroying his being. You're pulling the rug from under him. He's defending his turf and he's defending himself because he confused himself with the turf he stands on. He sees Buddhism as beautiful and precious and as something he'd hate to see gone. But it will be gone, and people like you and I hasten Buddhism's demise while preserving its inner wisdom. Alas, it's not easy to build one's identity on wisdom. It's much easier to associate with outward trappings which you can readily see and touch. Vaj doesn't want to die. Vaj wants to live forever. Buddhism living forever is Vaj's plan for immortality. It's his pension account.

There was a zen master, Harada Roshi, who once said that "once the need for buddhism is no longer apparent, true buddhism is manifesting itself."

Yes and this is deeply peaceful as you said... There is simply enjoying seeing, tasting, touching, without a need to rest in a view or experience, while at the same time not forming views like 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to everything - there is simply that ungraspable magic show displaying free from affirmation and negation.

 

Actually to cling to view is still false view. To cling to view means one holds on to a 'there is' with regards to a view, experience, or state. As I said... ALL clingings without exceptions are a manifestation of view. The right view is simply no view...

"Peaceful" is an understatement. Honestly, if there is a state that is more peaceful than that, I just don't know. No fear, no anger. I mean, knowing that wherever you are is ok and is where you're supposed to be. What could be better?

I know, I know, don't get attached. But this is beyond anything I would have imagined. I hesitate to claim realization for myself, as I like being humble, but if this is not anuttara samyak sambodhi, what is?

Yes and this is deeply peaceful as you said... There is simply enjoying seeing, tasting, touching, without a need to rest in a view or experience, while at the same time not forming views like 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to everything - there is simply that ungraspable magic show displaying free from affirmation and negation.

 

Actually to cling to view is still false view. To cling to view means one holds on to a 'there is' with regards to a view, experience, or state. As I said... ALL clingings without exceptions are a manifestation of view. The right view is simply no view...

Do you mean that words can never really capture what is? They can only point? Something along those lines?

Or like every single view creates a permanent self/controller/doer...?

If so, I think I know what you mean. Every view limits what is and constrains it. Clinging to any view limits the unlimitable.

phagmodrupa was attached to experience. But the nature of mind, emptiness, is not a view, not a state, not an experience. It is simply the way all things are, a magical luminous empty display, beyond affirmation and negation.

Yes, he believed that emptiness was only contained in a certain experience or view.

Exactly. It encompasses everything. It is everything -- views and no views.

Gampopa's squeezing the dough was just as much emptiness as his student's view was. So where is the need to rest in a certain view?

I told Thusness what I said here and he seems to suggest I understood what he is getting at.

In that case, I don't know! Report back to us when you find out

I'm not thusness, but I'm telling you, though, that you may find something if you look into the difference between views of emptiness and actually being that emptiness every moment.

"One day, Gampopa said to the assembly, "I need to instruct the Khampa Geshe separately from the rest of you." When he went to see the lama he was asked, "What Dharma have you studied? What have you practiced?", and so he described the many pieces of advice he had received and how he had put them all into practice. To the question: "What experiences have you had?", he described the way nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, had arisen. To: "Are you holding to that as the path of seeing?", he replied that he was, based on his understanding of The Vajra-Verses of Lamdre. To this, the lama said: "Really? You are holding to that as the path of seeing?" He replied that he was certain that he had realized it as it was introduced to him by Lord Sakyapa, who had used these words: "Uninterrupted continuity of the experience, the bliss, and the emptiness of the uncontrived nature of mind, the peak state of innate mind — this is the nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, that which produces the fine distinctions of awareness." Gampopa then exclaimed, "How unfortunate! Are you holding to that from the bottom of your heart as the path of seeing?" He replied, "This is the path of seeing as realized by way of all sutra, tantra, quintessential instruction, and meditative experiences." To steer him away from this way of thinking, Gampopa squeezed his sen [barley dough] in his hand and replied, "I prefer this to your nice 'path of seeing'." Gampopa then said, "Take a walk to that hill over there in the east; later we will discuss all of the dharmas received from others to which you are attached."

Phagmodrupa went up the eastern hill and pondered all of this. A short time later, all of his former good experiences quickly disintegrated, falling away like chaff and husk, and he then genuinely realized the true face of authentic realization, that which is beyond rational mind, the mahamudra. At that moment, his mind became unobstructed, like space, and he gasped, "All those former lamas — what are they to me now?" He returned to Gampopa, who was aware of his realization and said to him: "I have nothing more than that to teach you."

Transcend

 

 

 

Then ground and integrate, be eminent without attachment or aversion.

I would put it more as:

realize

then

don't become attached to your realization. Just be.