thuscomeone

No it's not thought.

 

The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions).

 

Seek into the source of thought without thought.

See this is why I think you are talking about the alaya and you are grasping at it as a separate controller or separate self without really knowing it. The alaya is the basis for all thought (or that which "gives rise" to all thought) since it is the basis of the mind itself and it is that which travels from birth to birth as a non substantial, impermanent and dependently arisen continuity. When you talk about the difference between awareness and thought, would you say that that is analogous to the relationship between space and matter? Here I would be equating the alaya with space and thought with matter. Since the alaya (or space) is the basis of mind itself, it obviously pervades all thoughts (or matter). And you cannot actually separate space and matter, or the alaya and thoughts. There is no space apart from matter. And there is no matter apart from space. So at any given moment when a thought arises, the alaya or space is contained within that and there are not two divided things in that moment. There is not "the source which gives rise to the "I thought" and "the I thought" as two separate/divided things at that moment. Let me ask you and please answer this, when a thought arises, at that moment is there the source which gives rise to the thought or the basis for that thought AND is there the thought itself? Are these two divided things in that moment? This is what I think you are thinking. The way I see it, the "source" that gives rise to, or the basis for that thought itself is not apart from that thought at that moment. It is contained within and it pervades that thought. It is that thought!

Awareness and thought are not separate, nor are they the same. Awareness is a primordial dimension that is basis ("basis" NOT as is ground of experience like Advaita) of phenomenal existence.

 

Like time and space, they are not things. I can't point out to you what time is or what space is, or where it is I can tell you how it is through the contents and characteristics of time and space. It wouldn't be wrong to say that the source of matter is space, but the source of space is also matter. It is same with consciousness and phenomena.

 

"I" thought is not thought as you'd imagine.

 

You keep thinking awareness is some sort of "thing" that is like the table, or body.

 

I'm not coping out by telling you to think for yourself. You really need to think for yourself, so I keep saying it. You also need to seriously meditate to have some more tools to think with. You lack experience that comes without conceptual insight. Let insight arise from experience instead.

I don't think that awareness is a thing, but I still know where "it" is and that it is present. Otherwise, I would have no basis for talking about it. And I CAN find that which I believe to be the "I." So I accept that it is there. But for you, why talk about something that you can't even find? If you can't even point it out to yourself, how do you accept that it is there? Then you are just accepting something on faith.

I can find everything that I talk about. I can find dependent arising, I can find impermanence, I can find awareness (though it's not a "thing"), I can find sensations, I can find the "I." Do you know why I talk about these things AT ALL? BECAUSE I CAN FIND THEM IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE. The only thing I can't find and that you can't find is this elusive "I" which you continue to talk about. And I'm sorry, I don't accept that something is there on faith.

I told you before that awareness is both formless and in all forms. That is you can see it in all forms since it is actually not separate from all forms yet you can't see it's basic quality of illumination - that is formless.

Illusion and reality are opposing terms. If all is one opposing term, then the other term ceases to have meaning, and so do both concepts lose their meaning.

 

At a certain level of practice, the world disappears. Then your body disappears. All is seen as a dream like manifestation of the mind.

What do you mean? Disappears as in become nothingness? What do you mean by disappears?

No it's not thought.

 

The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions).

 

Seek into the source of thought without thought.

What? Tell me where that which gives rise to thought is. Where is this source of thought without thought? I've asked you several times and you still avoid the question. Point it out for me. I don't think you know.

Again, which of the 8 liberations are false? (besides skirting around with "at a certain level"?)

I would say that none of them are false. They are just different levels of experience. I'm just trying to tell you that if you believe that we can't make distinctions or that there is no actual difference between illusion and reality, you are in a senseless position.

Awareness is not thought. Just as brain is not consciousness.

 

 

Go through this process again. Seek the source of the "I" thought and when it arises. The sense of "I."

 

 

No, the alaya is simply another taste of consciousness, another habitual state of being.

Yet without even bothering with what awareness is or isn't, lets look again at your statement, "you are the movement which tries to find the "I." Isn't that movement, that analysis which tries to find the "I" a series of thoughts? I asked you this before and you didn't answer. Please answer me.

The sense of "I" is a thought. Right? Like when I say "I will go to the park" or "I will do my homework." That's all thought, isn't it?

So which of the 8 liberations are false? Why this constant dichotomy between illusion and reality? There really is no dichotomy except in the mind of dichotomy. And in using the tools of dichotomy one will only find dichotomy.

 

Good luck

 

Om

Um because there is a difference between an illusion and reality? That's why one is always careful to say that things are like illusions and not actually illusions. Because there is a difference/ an important division between those two - like an illusion and actually an illusion. Now difference and sameness are not inherent in things, they arise dependently like everything else. But they are present nonetheless. This whole point and the whole path of Buddhism is built on stressing duality. Sure there is non duality at a certain level. But you won't get anywhere without duality. You know, knowing the difference between "Right view" and "wrong view"? Between "true existence" and "non true existence"? etc etc. Here we go again with this attack on discrimination.

Why don't you go think for yourself?

 

It's pretty straight forward.

No I want you to tell me. But since you probably don't even know what that means yourself and you are going to spew out some garbage at me that you just made up on the spot in response to this post, maybe I can help YOU make sense of it.

"If all is reality, then all is illusion."

"If all is illusion, then all is reality."

These are just word games. Look, there is a reality out there. There is something present that doesn't just vanish when you approach it. Now what is present is ungraspable but it is not a nothingness. Like take a mirage for instance. That is a perfect example of an actual illusion. When you approach and investigate that mirage, it dissapears. That means there was never anything there to begin with. It was actually just a nothingness that you were tricked into believing was something actually present. Now if I am looking at this chair and I find that the chair cannot be said to exist, not exist, both or neither then the chair still doesn't disappear does it? Now, there is still a dependently arisen chair obviously present. Yet as is said, the chair is like an illusion because it is always changing and it has no self substance. But it not actually an illusion because it isn't actually just a nothingness. It doesn't vanish like a real illusion that I described would. So the chair is both real and like

an illusion but not an illusion.

Awareness is not thought. Just as brain is not consciousness.

 

 

Go through this process again. Seek the source of the "I" thought and when it arises. The sense of "I."

 

 

No, the alaya is simply another taste of consciousness, another habitual state of being.

So then there is an awareness and then there is thought? These are separate? But isn't thought awareness itself? Isn't a thought/thinking a form of awareness just like seeing is? Where is this awareness that is not thought? Point it out for me. And don't cop out again by telling me to think for myself. That is just an tactic that you use to take the burden of explanation off of yourself. I think you are going to eventually tell me that this awareness is the gap between two thoughts. That is what YOU really are is that awareness which is the gap and as that awareness you are NOT thoughts, sensations, etc.

Again, you avoid my question. Don't put it on me. I asked you where this movement that you claim you are is. So point it out for me. "The source of the "I" thought?" The "I" thought is a thought thus it is mind/awareness whatever you want to call it and that "I" thought comes about through causes and conditions. That's it. There is no other "source" of the "I" thought. If you have found one, tell me.

You are the movement which tries to find the "I." You are the awareness and thought. Just as we can say matter is because of matter and space. They can't be separated, but they are not one. Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

Another thing here. I think you are making the same mistake that I made for a long time. You are talking about two things that can't be separated but they are not one. This is what I thought non duality meant for the longest time. I thought that it meant the coming together, the union of two different things. Actually that is not non duality at all. Non duality is not a union of two different things. It is precisely that there are not two things to begin with. It is not the merging of "mind" and "phenomena" or "matter" as two different things. The merging of two different things still presumes duality. Instead, non duality is just one indivisible happening.

You are the movement which tries to find the "I." You are the awareness and thought. Just as we can say matter is because of matter and space. They can't be separated, but they are not one. Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

"The movement which tries to find the I." Are you separating awareness and thought here? Are they different? In my own experience, the movement which tries to find the I is itself a thought. So the I is that thought which tries to find the I. So the "I" is trying to find the "I"! The I is not other than thought! It is not something else than thought itself. Like right now, we are analyzing in order to find the "I" right? And all that analyzing is movement of thought isn't it?

If this movement is not thought, then where is it?

One more thing, I think you may be actually talking about the alaya - the 8th consciousness, when you speak of this I which is not sensations but which is not outside of sensations either. The alaya travels from birth to birth with a non substantial continuity so in that sense it can be considered outside of sensations. Yet it is also the basis for all sensations and the basis of mind itself so it can be said to pervade all sensations. The alaya is frequently mistaken as an "I", as this separate, divided controller. I know that it is said that the 7th consciousness taking the alaya for an "I" in this sense is one of the main causes of samsara. But I'm not quite sure here. Maybe Xabir can expand.

If all is illusion, then all is reality. If all is reality, then all is also illusion.

Hmmm, expand.

You investigate awareness with awareness, the "I" with the "I," trying to see the eye.

 

You have to investigate investigation.

 

Why is creation of mind not an established reality? Because all phenomena is dependently originated.

Oh sure creations mind are non inherently existent, but as I've said multiple times, that does not connote non reality or nothingness. No, dependently arisen phenomena are very real. Emptiness is not non reality though it may seem like it. It is actually a deep affirmation of reality. See, I get the feeling that when you talk about no established reality, you are not just talking about things being like an illusion like the buddha said but you are talking about things literally being illusions or abstractions or literally not real. Not actually present.

Who? Whatever consciousness clings to as the source of action at a given moment.

 

What and where? It can be here, there, everywhere, nowhere. No fixed entity, no self.

 

In control? In control of what consciousness identifies as the "body" (not necessarily material or form). In control of its own manifestation.

 

The "I" is not outside of sensations, nor is it sensations. It can be experienced as both, because "I" has no fixed location or existence. It is free to be what it wants to be. There is the relationship of the controller and controlled, but no established controller or controlled in phenomena. Only the relative relationship exists, but the actual content being subject or object is illusory.

 

As long as the logic is sound and the interpretation is in line with my experiences and experiences of others, I will gladly say that I am wrong. If my tone of conviction bothers you, it is because I approach all this with good intensity.

 

I got my views from Xabir . From Taoist princples, Sutras, my own insight, from people here and there, and the varieties of accounts people regarding reality.

 

The paradigm I have found for myself fits so perfectly with everything I experience that I haven't yet found anything wrong with it.

So would you say that you are that "I" that you describe here? "It is not outside of sensations nor is it sensations." So where is it then? Point it out for me. If I am going to believe that what you say saying is legit, I have to be able to find that thing which are talking about within my own experience. Otherwise, it has no basis in reality. It is an illusion. You see, for me, I can find the "I." I know where it is in my own experience. So since I can find that thing and point directly to it in my own direct experience, I know the "I" I am talking about is not an illusion. I find the "I" contained within all sensations - it is in fact, not other than all those sensations and it can never be separated from them.

There is an answer in Buddhism. You just haven't looked enough.

 

What is awareness? What is knowingness? What is this illuminating quality? Where is it? How does it arise? Why does it arise?

 

 

"god" terminology was not used to have anything to do with God you idiot. You need to read carefully instead of skimming.

 

You have a wrong interpretation of experience because your method of investigation is flawed. I pointed this out in detail several times previously.

 

Sensations are just creations of the mind, they are not established reality. Your experiences at the moment are limited so you don't have enough tools to contemplate this with.

You are such an arrogant know it all little you know what. If I said the last word, I would most likely be banned. You really don't know shit about my experiences so I wouldn't talk about them with authority if I were you. My "method of investigation"? I don't have a specific "method". I just look at things and try to figure out how they work. I look for facts about reality. I try to find the way things truly are. For instance, somebody tells me that things are always changing. So in order to see if they are correct, I observe the world and see that yep, they are always changing. It is not that difficult. And that is it. No special method. I just observe. If what I find has a basis in reality, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it.

Why is a creation of mind not an established reality? At this point, I would say that creations of mind are the ONLY established reality. I think you are thinking that if there is truly only the mind, then the world is actually unreal. No, as I said before, the world is very real. It is not a nothingness.

You use the term "nothingness" so casually here without ever understanding or considering its meaning. Nihilism is not the same as materialism as I noted above.

 

Why don't you actually read what I write.

I JUST TOLD YOU IT'S MEANING. It can mean either complete nothingness, the extreme of non existence or it can mean rejection of all moral values (the more traditional meaning of it). Buddhists would say that it is nihilistic to think that there is nothing after death. Materialists believe there is nothing after death. So nihilism and materialism are equated. Jesus Christ on the cross (sorry).

You should've spent that time contemplating what I said instead.

 

I have typed through 15 pages in this thread. I've repeated my ideas over and over again. Yet you and Xabir cannot get around your own doctrines and never fully make the effort to challenge held beliefs or listen to others, like a bunch of religious fanatics. Xabir often comes to this forum, cuts and pastes like a robot, because he has forgotten to investigate for himself. He's forgotten how to listen, how to rethink, how to consider newer potentials.

 

I am insulting you so that you'd become angry enough to actually reconsider your ideals (not likely to happen) or begin to see the faults in them when you re emphasize them over and over to yourself. You don't have a teacher unlike Xabir, so you still have room for personal analysis. Xabir's cup's already too full.

 

Go back and read from page 5 if you want details. I will briefly answer the questions above.

 

Enlightenment is complete freedom of will. All habits, causes, and conditions are seen through as unestablished and falsely clung to as real. Consciousness is free to create its own experiences according to the conditions it decides to see, it can be everything but then it can be nothing. It can be dual and not dual, because all states are seen to be subjectively created. All experiences are transcended this way. Moreoever omniscience and reached through the ability of awareness to pervade through all modes of creations. Every possible manifestation and movement of consciousness is immediately realized.

 

I am the interplay of consciousness and phenomena. I am that which consciousness is at the moment. I can be my body, not be my body, be light, be rain, be hand, be anything, be sound, not be sound.

 

The expanding clarity is actually everything dissolving back into primordial awareness, wherein creation simply exists as potential. It is not complete subjectivity, but of luminous quality, a being of light, as consciousness and light, their dependence, define this state. This state is not enlightenment, it is simply a tool just as all states. True wisdom is seeing through all these states as mere plays of consciousness so that one does not fall into identifying consciousness with phenomena.

 

So unlike some who think that a certain state of being is the "true" experience of reality, one should never fall into completely adherence to any states. This is the true middle road, rejection of both "all is subject" and "all is object" views.

Sounds like your cup is pretty full as well. You think you know everything and that you have all the answers too. Don't be a hypocrite. I'll just start with that first sentence. "Enlightenment is complete freedom of will" Lucky, who is the one who wills? What and where is the "I" that wills? Is this "I" in control? Is there an "I" in control and then that which it controls as two different things? Because this is usually what will implies. An "I" which is outside of sensations, manipulating sensations. A "I" which is going to "get this" or "get rid of that."

One more question, where have you gotten your views from? Yourself? I'm not saying that they don't have validity because you learned them yourself. I'm just saying that if you are going to call some of the stuff that you write Buddhism, you should think twice and you should really look into confirming your views with a teacher, if you really want to know if what you know is Buddhism or not.

You simply wrote out the functions of mind, but not what mind is or how it arises. You best answer was..."oh look it's right here."

 

 

How does the mindstream arise? How does this experience arise?

 

Tell me how sentience arises from non sentience. If you say "oh I just experience my mind in phenomena called sound, so my mind must be sound," you are giving sentience to the phenomena of sound and the conditions that produced it.

 

There is difference between "certain" conditions and "condition"ness. Look into the difference.

 

You have not yet understood the difference between momentary phenomena and continuation of the characteristic of phenomena.

 

 

No, the unmanifest is not the ideology of emptiness. Emptiness is the doctrine of impermanence and non-inherent nature. The umanifest is simply that which has not manifested yet.

 

The fallacy of your logic is in creating a "God" terminology, that "everything is this" sort of thinking. Mind is not existence, or else all that is existent would be sentient.

 

The mind is not inside or outside. It is not this or that. It is not all or part. It can be all these things, but it is not because it has no fixed entity. This is the true meaning of "no-self."

I told you that mind is awareness, mind is that knowingness, that illuminating quality that is both formless and in forms. I think you are looking for how the mind itself was created. There is no answer to that in Buddhism because there is no first cause, there was never a beginning to the mind. There are just endless manifestations of mind arising from moment to moment due to conditions, causes and parts.

As for the continuation of the characteristic of phenomena, if you mean how can things have characteristics when they are empty? They have relative identities. Not identities in themselves. These relative identities persist through causal continuity.

Where have I created a god terminology? You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said anything about God. Emptiness is not god. Mind is not god. I told you that I am just getting into this "all is mind" stuff and in fact I am reading a book right now which I think is going to really expand my knowledge on the subject. But even without reading the book, I can pretty much tell that all is mind. I don't really care for your arguments like "all existence would be sentient" because right now in my own experience and in others experience I know that there is only the mind, there are only sensations as the first and final basis of reality. Do I know all the implications of that yet? Certainly not. But I do know that is true from my own personal experience. Just please, look into your experience and see if you can find anything other than sensations.

Well when you talk about the unmanifest as "a creative potential" that sure sounds a lot like emptiness. When you use that term, I don't see that it is wrong to equate the two.

It's ok to insult as long as intentions are good. It makes the discussion more personal.

 

Abstract means precisely "of the mind."

 

Nihilism and eternalism are not extremes. People love tossing around the concept of nihilism because of its negative connotation.

 

Nihilism can mean two things. One regards to morality, where all moral values are rejected because they are seen to be completely subjective, and other to extreme skepticism of the validity of everything.

 

Materialism is the word you are looking for on the opposite of eternalism. Buddhist eternalism is that there is an unchanging self, a soul, which is not what I'm saying. But Xabir's "all is object" is exactly the opposite extreme of eternalism, that the self is based on objective phenomena.

 

Why don't you look into these concepts more carefully before simply adhering to doctrine?

 

You need to be insulted. I don't like insulting people when it's out of place. But you need it.

Oh I need it? You are quite the guy you know that? Nihilism in Buddhism has two meanings. Rejection of all moral values which leads to meaninglessness AND it means nothingness, stating that nothing exists. Nihilism and materialism are pretty much equated in Buddhism since a materialist would say that there is just nothing after death. The rejection of nihilism is precisely the rejection of these two views.

Eternalism has to do with true existence and the whole soul thing. That is some people have always thought that there is an unchanging core to their being that live forever. The rejection of eternalism is precisely the rejection of this view.

No you have not. I can see it and you have only broken through the gate of certainty that once was "I am the body/brain."

 

You are now at the door possibility, where awareness has seen a renewable possibility in its relationship to phenomena. You have yet to experience expanding Clarity, a return to the source that is yourself.

 

The question "who am I" must become an active process of undoing, and one gains the ability to return to primordial awareness in which everything else returns to potential existence (but this is not enlightenment, it is simply another state of being).

Oh you see? You know where I'm at? Ok...

Lucky, what is enlightenment in your mind? Who are you? What is "yourself?" What is "expanding clarity"? What is this source that is yourself? Please answer all of these questions for me as I have taken time out my day to write long winded answers to your questions. I would really like to know if, deep down, you actually have anything of substance to back up your authoritative, condescending tone.

What is mind? Is the experience of another person than also in the mind? What of the thing not within the mind, but in another mind? Is that also a "all" or is that not "all"?

 

If mind is "all" then it doesn't arise from anything can it? How can an "all" arise from something?

 

If you say that "all" is dependent on parts, if we take a part out of the all, then there is a new "all," so the "all"ness is still intact without that part. So we can't say mind is dependent on a specific part, the characteristic of all"ness" might change, but there is still the "all." So say that the moment of mind is dependent, but the "mind"ness carries on.

 

How does it arise? From the stick, bell, ear, the brain? How does sentience arise from insentient factors? How has your mindstream come about?

 

We not talking about a moment of mind, but mind"ness," its very experience.

 

"In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent." Actually this is stupid. There are a lot of things absent, the "unmanifest" that exist as potential. But it is not something, it is unimagined, it is non-existent. This is precisely what gives creation its infinite potential.

 

So it is better to think that there is cognition of non-existence from the perspective of existence, just as there is cognition of existence from the perspective of that which does not exist. This is precisely the way consciousness and phenomena both arise.

 

 

 

What is the mind? Please define the way you are using mind.

 

Do you mean thoughts? Do you mean consciousness? Do you mean intent? Do you mean movement? (these are all different things)

 

That's not it. Go do some more thinking, you have ways to go.

I told you what mind is already. I just wrote you a long answer. Go back a page and there is more.

When I talk about mind as the all, I'm talking about mindstreams. Individual mindstream not a universal cosmic substance or something. YOUR mind is the totality of YOUR experience. MY mind is the totality of my experience. We have different minds. Your mind is the all in your unique experience, my mind is the all in my experience. But our minds are not the same. I already told you how the mindstream arises. The moment of individual mindstream needs certain conditions and has parts. So it is empty but present. There is no contradiction between the mind being the all in one's experience and the mind arising dependently (or being empty). If you find one, you have not looked deep enough. For instance, in this moment of your seeing, in YOUR own unique experience, the mind is the all there is yet this moment of seeing arose didn't it? This moment wasn't always there was it? No, it arose. And whatever arises is empty, not truly existent. Why would an existent thing need to arise? It exists. True existents don't need to arise because they exist. So the mind is empty and there is no contradiction.

I would say that "the unmanifest" is emptiness because emptiness is that "which gives creation it's infinite potential" as you say. Without emptiness, nothing could happen. Nothing could change or arise because all things would be fixed, static and truly existent. Without emptiness, you could not become enlightened. You could not change. Emptiness is that potential and I already told you that emptiness is not non existence. Emptiness IS impermanent and dependent phenomena.

The mind is consciousness, the mind is thoughts, the mind is intent (intent is just an arising thought such as "I will do this"). As for movement, I'm not quite sure but you mean by movement but I would say that is the mind too. The mind is constantly moving and changing. So the mind is all these things.

As for "cognition of existence from the perspective of non existence, etc." I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain and don't cop out this time. Please actually explain what you mean.

Are you stupid? If you look for your keys, then you know your keys exist. It's all simple to me yes, but perhaps not to you.

 

 

Contemplation of dependent origination is not for you to see something present. You used it in a wrong context. It was like saying, "the eye means walking."

 

 

You say all is mind. Well, then reality is itself an abstraction.

 

 

Why don't you go think about it a bit more, give it a day or two, then decide whether you understand it or not. Dependent origination is not limited to cause and effect, nor a connective transition (connection is a vague word, that was my fault) from A to B. A and B arise, but that is not A becoming B and so forth.

I said that is was my fault for calling you an idiot. I admitted that it was me at fault not you. Now you come back and insult me?

Contemplation of dependent arising is precisely to see that something is present and yet to see that what is present is not truly existent. Contemplation of dependent arising is to see the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. Dependent arising IS the middle way. It's just how things are.

No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is just an abstraction.

I did not use the word "transcend" that way. Again you are assuming my meaning without careful consideration.

 

Well, it was a bad metaphor then. Your anger does not fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Your anger doesn't fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Anger, fear, suffering, loneliness, are all very useful feelings navigating through our lives. Once you have seen though all these phenomena as you have said through awareness, you have complete choice to utilize "anger" or not, one has complete knowledge of oneself and one's state of being. Hence these feelings are transcended.

 

 

 

Zen is the living sutra. Zen is not conceptualization or idealization, that is why you find its abstract koans not so...valuable. They are there to destroy your mental formulations.

 

The wrong approach to all this is "I will get the ideology down, all the words in the right place, in the right order. I will know all the definitions as such and then apply it to practice." I find this to be Xabir's main problem. Practice and insight must arise on their own and not by a set blueprint. The words must be your own words. The trouble comes when one begins to force ideology into reality believing in that that ideology is supreme, and abstract terms such as "no-self" become imbedded in wrong experience.

 

Whatever you learn as Buddhism is only second hand to your current experience at the moment. Trust in your own intelligence and logic. So forget all these when you sit to meditate/contemplate. Look into it yourself.

 

Something like...be a light onto yourself?

I never said that you never become angry. Anger arises, sure. But if you see the emptiness of it's arising, it will dissipate. Or rather it will change into a calm state of mind. And if you continue to see the emptiness of your anger, you will naturally be less and less angry and you will experience a calm state of mind more often. That's it.

Sure, trust your own experience over the words of the Buddha. I know. It just so happens that the words of the Buddha correctly describe my own experience.

Where is right there? Is awareness one with the sound? Is sound awareness? Is there a sound awareness and non-sound awareness? Then how can we say there is such thing as awareness in the first place?

 

 

How does this questing "I" arise? How does the mind arise? What is the nature of the questioning mind and awareness?

 

 

I never denied I had a mind. Please go re read my posts and try to actually understand what I've been saying. I've replied thoughtfully to every point and logic Xabir has made, and considered them carefully (which I don't see the point of repeating it with you), I expect the same out of Xabir and anyone who wants to assert their own positions, otherwise this ceases to be a genuine discussion. SO you are arguing with a misguided concept of my position.

 

I never said there was nothing or anything about nihilism in the sense of a extreme skepticism. This isn't a discussion about ontological existence or non-existence.

 

"Dependent arising means there is something (well not a "thing" present." No. Dependent arising means that any experience or event arises due to another condition, hence that it cannot stand on its own or be eternal. I know what it means, and I've stated it so.

 

 

The question of who am I is a technique also, which you have yet explored. It is not simply a conceptual questioning, but a phenomenal change of awareness.

 

 

Actually they are very flexible. Let's look at the meaning of impermanence. When we say phenomena is impermanent, then there is permanence to that impermanence, a permanent characteristic and quality to that impermanence. When we look at dependent origination, we must look at how one thing arises from one another without a cause, which challenges the very meaning of conceptual "oneness" and "twoness." Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements.

 

You must look at the purpose of the word's usage and their grounded meaning in reality. Abstract concepts like "dependent origination" and "impermanence/permanence" are more so geared towards deconstructing formulated opinions and views.

 

Good. Mind and phenomena are not one, not two. I've made the same point over and over again.

 

But you have to further look into what "all" means and what "parts" means. Hearing is not all when one sees the person and the stick. Then suddenly the all includes the hearing of sound and also the vision of the stick hitting the drum.

 

You must also look further into the difference of actual content (stick, bell, etc) and the content"ness" (the existence of material stick, phenomena of soundness). The stick and the bell do not give rise to the sentient mind, but the sentient mind, as you have pointed out, necessitates the experience of stick, the bell, and the sound, to be.

 

Keep going. Keep questioning, the more you question, the less obvious all this becomes.

No, I would say that that is wrong. The more you question, the more obvious things become. You see, things are pretty simple. Not simplistic, but simple. It's we who make them complex.

Your continuous questioning of where your mind was led me to believe that you were confused if you had one or not. For instance, if I can't find my keys when looking in a certain spot, I'm probably going to conclude that they aren't there. It's so obvious where it is, I really don't know how it would be hard for you to find it.

No? Dependent arising doesn't mean that something is present? So what is it that is arising dependently? Nothing? Arising is the arising of something hence the term mere appearance or clearly apparent non existent.

I've had a phenomenal change of awareness already from questioning "who am I?" so don't presume that I haven't and I know nothing about that.

Impermanence and dependent arising are NOT abstract concepts. Don't make them into abstractions. They are facts about reality. For instance, you can look anywhere and see that it is a fact that there is change. But we must remember that change is not a "thing." Language makes it seem as if one is reifying change but in actuality it is never reified as a solid thing. It is emptiness and thus it is ungraspability itself.

"Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements."

I really don't know what you are saying here. Could you please expand? You seem to be saying that no connection can be found within dependent elements? That's what dependent arising means, that there IS a connection. Unless you are saying that all things are connected yet are individual (a tree is not a human is not a car, etc.) The latter makes sense, the former not so much.

"All" is the totality, the total field of experience of an individual mindstream. "Part" is all of those individual things which make up the totality of the field of experience of an individual mindstream.

Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because there is obviously something present. And it is because without a "thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that there is existence and non existence both of which we have previously refuted. So we can't say neither.

So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end, it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind. Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically it.

You chose that name fully aware of what it means. You insulting Zen actually makes a lot of sense.

 

 

This is the falsity of falling into emotions arising from a self confirmed "insight." Dependent origination goes into much subtler insights, it dives into the subconscious to slowly undo many attachments one has built.

 

Do not glorify these moments of "eureka" you will have many of them and every time you will realize that your feelings are self created precisely by the question you have put forth as first. These are all clinging to answers which have not much to do with actual insight. It's like asking how many horns a rabbit has, and finding the "answer" one become ecstatic.

 

And

 

It's not about having a shield around you you fool. It's not about being unmoved. It's being able to be moved and unmoved, so concepts such as "moved" and "unmoved" are all transcended.

 

 

 

I do get it. I perfectly explained Xabir's position twice to which he agreed that I understood. Why don't you and Xabir try to understand my position, because I don't think either of you do. My approach is always to understand first, digest it, see if it's applicable to reality, see the varying consequences. For months I was in complete agreement with everything Xabir put forth (you weren't here for that), I've learned much from him.

 

But for the reasons I've outlined in this thread multiple times, his paradigm is flawed.

Sure we can "transcend" concepts. But don't let that make you think that you can't make clear distinctions. This is a huge error I see with a lot of people. They seem to think that "nirvana" or whatever is a state in which you are incapable of discrimination or conceptual thought. I said it before and I'll say it again, that is not where you want to be. The shield thing is just a metaphor. When you realize the fact that all things are present yet completely ungraspable you realize that you can be in the world yet completely unmoved by it - by unmoved I mean that if you see dependent arising in every moment (something which I am not able to do yet) your anger will fade away. But you do not make a conscious effort and say "I must get rid of anger." No, you let it arise naturally and see it's emptiness in that moment. Then it fades away and you are unmoved by it by not reacting to it.

For the last time, I did not choose this username because I think I am better or smarter than anybody. Get over it, move on. I chose it because I like the sound of it. It sounds cool to me. It sounds badass to me

By the way, I'm not insulting Zen. I'm insulting people who think that Zen is about just having a blank state of mind in which all thoughts must be shunned and being incapable of conceptual thought and discrimination should be glorified.