thuscomeone

AH HA! I HAVE WEPT, I HAVE WEPT!

 

In realizing, in realizing....

 

I CAN I CAN!!!

 

the bliss, the bliss, the bliss, the bliss... . ...

 

T.T

 

Man, I miss Vaj. Well sort of.

Um...sure?

Is he gone for good or what?

You claim the objective world exists. However Buddha has taught a path beyond the 4 extremes of existence. Emptiness of phenomena is beyond the 4 extremes of existence. The second you claim "objective world exist", you no longer hold the view that is beyond the extremes of existence.

I am not convinced you understand what you're talking about. It seems like you are repeating words that are way beyond your actual practical understanding. Kind of like a donkey carrying a Sutta on its back. The donkey is able to faithfully deliver the words of the Buddha, but has no clue about what it is delivering.

I have never claimed that the objective world "exists." My original assertion and question was: I believe that there are relative, dependently arisen insentient objects which come about due to processes which have nothing to do with the mind. Does this mean there is an objective world, an always changing and thus empty world that can be without the mind?

You are not convinced? That doesn't really mean anything to me. Beyond my practical understanding? I have wept, yes literally wept, at the fact of the beauty of emptiness. At the union of emptiness and form. At the fact that because of the ultimate inability to assert the four extremes, ungraspability is the nature of things/reality, whatever you want to call it. Since grasping is the root of all suffering in my mind, in realizing I had nothing to grasp ultimately, I felt for the first time that I could overcome all suffering. Don't tell me I'm just parroting words. You have done nothing to show me that you have a better understanding of emptiness than me. All you can do is make witty and snide remarks and call me a moron.

Exactly my point. If you accept the existence of an objective world, it's only on blind faith that you can do so.

Not only do we lack any evidence for this, but there is absolutely no way to even begin gathering such evidence. You either accept the pre-existence of the objective world on faith, or you don't. There is no way to convince someone who has no faith in the objective world to change his or her mind. It's worse than that even. There is no way to convince someone with no faith in the objective world that having faith in the objective world could possibly have merit or improve the quality of life in any way. If anything, as beings accept faith in the objective world, their quality of life declines.

No. It's because you claim to understand emptiness.

 

Your question in the beginning was actually very good, but you don't have what it takes to investigate it honestly.

Actually, it is very hard. You must be ready to accept the consequences.

"I claim to understand emptiness." What do you mean by this and what am I missing with emptiness? Or are you saying that the very fact that I claim to know what emptiness is makes me a moron because emptiness isn't anything? It is actually no-thing. The absence of things. That's true, but there is still right view. There is still correct knowledge. I believe that right view is not this "no view" nonsense. Everybody has a view. It is correct view that matters. Emptiness as the viewless view is still a viewless view.

Oh good. Turns out I don't have any reason to act like you're ignoring my own pick for an authority.

 

You are a sentient being. You agree there is nothing outside of mind for you. Since I am talking to you and not to non-you, you don't have the standing to present the non-you's case for non-you. Let non-you speak for itself and you speak for yourself. So when you speak for yourself, which is the only honest thing you can do, you have to admit that there is nothing outside mind.

 

Where do you get the idea of the universe from? Did universe tell you about herself or is it your mind that's telling you about it?

We all can make any number of statements. So you are making a statement. How exciting and novel.

You're a moron. I have no respect for you.

Objective world is said to exist independently of observers.

 

Consensual reality is said to exist as a function of consensus between observers.

 

Objective world doesn't depend on observers. Consensual reality does.

Moron? Because I am curious as to whether or not there is an objective world? A question which has been asked by great philosophers throughout history?

It's easy to call somebody a moron on the internet isn't it gold? You don't have to look them in the face. Gives you a feeling of power doesn't it?

You think I care if I have your respect? You can keep it, I don't want it.

Ehh, I have to clarify what I mean when I say that there is nothing but mind for us. The mind (individual mindstream) as non dual, empty presence expands and encompasses everything in one's field of experience. In a sense it is like a field which is undivided from everything in the field. Yet, though undivided, it is not the same as everything in the field. The mind is sentient, there are things which are insentient. They are different.

First, let me say, "At least I am in the running." I am joking, of course. I am laughing at you and myself simultaneously. I gave you a link to a precious Tantra text, which in Tibetan Buddhism is considered Buddha nirmanakaya itself. It's far more authoritative than the Dalai Lama. Do yourself a favor and read it. It's worth your time, I promise. I don't recommend some garbage to you. I offer you a precious jewel. "Buddhahood without Meditation" is a profound text. This is the last time I will suggest you read it. If you don't want to read it, your karma is just not ripe for it, that's all.

When did I ever say the book wasn't right for me? Stop acting like I'm refusing to read it.

Secondly, and more seriously, it is obvious that your understanding is still wobbly in that you need to lean on an authority for support. I know you won't accept this line and will argue against it, so don't bother wasting your time. We both know how this goes, and this isn't the most interesting part anyway.

I don't need to "lean" on an authority figure for support. I don't just believe the dalai lama because he is an authority figure. I believe what he says because I have seen what he says is true. And most other Buddhists teachers worth their salt say the same things that he does. But as to the argument from authority thing, if you wanted to know about a particular subject, wouldn't you go to a well known authority on it?

Exactly. Why is it the problem is yours and not mine? Because we have different mindsets. I take it you won't be so arrogant as to say that your position is objective while mine is subjective, right? If you agree to put your cognition of this topic on the same level as mine, then you prove my point: there is nothing to know outside of mind itself. Even if something external to mind existed, you would have no way to validly infer it, and you'd simply have to take it on faith (exactly the same as Christian belief in God, or as I like to say, physical matter and physical energy is physicalist's God).

There is nothing outside of mind itself for sentient beings. I agree. For us, there is nothing but mind itself. Yet does that mean that mind is the ultimate reality of the universe? Is mind the ultimate truth for insentient things? There is a big universe out there. We are just one piece in it.

Well that's your intended meaning. You want the words to point to something outside of themselves. That's the meaning you want and intend your words to have. I understand that. But that doesn't mean there is anything that your words actually refer to. That still remains to be proven.

The labels and the things "themselves" are dependent upon each other within the interdependent co-arising. In fact, things have no self, and neither do labels. That's the whole point of Buddhist logic -- there is no such thing as a "thing in itself". This point is fundamental. Delineation is a certain type of mind activity. Take away delineation and there are no more things.

I know all this. This is emptiness. I've been over this. You do not agree that there are dependently arisen mere appearances that are merely labeled? That the labels refer to? Sure ultimately there is no thing in itself yet there are relative appearances which can have relative identities/beings which we can distinguish from one another with labels (conventionally). If you do not agree with this, you do not agree with buddhism - form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

In reality Buddhism goes even beyond this though. This argument, which doesn't represent the fullest extent of Buddhist insight, is all I need to counter your silly assertion. The fullest extent of the Buddhist insight is even more radical.

It's precisely because things do not exist "out there" that our conceptual labeling is called baseless in Buddhist logic. If you think that Buddhists believe our labels have basis, I have a surprise for you:

Of course they have a basis. Dependently originated, relative mere appearances. Again, this is basic buddhism. Denying appearances and their relative functioning is nihilism.

Absurd. When does the ability to distinguish labels from appearances arise? If it arises before the appearance, then mind pre-exists appearances. If the ability to distinguish appearances from labels arises after appearances arise, then how can one determine that "appearances arose?" That's one counter.

 

Another equally good counter is to say that labels are appearances themselves and to distinguish appearances from labels is without meaning in the final analysis. Your argument foolishly depends on the idea that appearances are inherently different from labels.

I'm not talking about anything inherent. So a concept in your mind is the same thing as as the mere appearance of a tree? Sentience (awareness) and insentience are the same thing? Appearances have relative identities that come out of dependent arising which are not true, actual identities (things in themselves). They have different relative natures. In fact without having relative identity (dependently arisen identity) they would not be ultimately identityless.

Lastly, as to the appearances/labels thing, you misinterpret me. All I'm saying is that without something that the label is referring to, there would be no label. So the label/concept depends on that which it refers to (the mere appearance) in order to be.

Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception. [/color]

I don't get this either, yet I hear people say it or imply it over and over again. I don't even know where to start with it. I agree that the mind has a hand in bringing forth some matter. For instance, a building is conceived of in the mind before it is built so without that mental conception it would not have come to be. Yet even that does not come completely from the mind. And take something like the sun rising, rain falling from the sky. That is a natural process that the mind has absolutely no part in. Ok so the mind labels it "sky", "rain" etc. So what? Instead of "the sky" you can call the sky a "bear", "a house" "a frog", whatever. Those words are all still pointing to something which is there and which I don't believe would just disappear if these labels went away or if the mind went away. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise.

 

Do you believe that dinosaurs once walked the Earth? There were no humans then to imagine then or to be consciously aware of them. How did they manage to exist? Cheeezzzee!!!

 

Peace & Love!

This is a perfect example.

I think that this topic definitely relates to this Zen koan:

"Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

Why believe anyone at all? Does the Dali Lama hold more authority than you, me, or anyone else? In one sense, sure he's experienced and has knowledge. But in the other sense, he's human, just like we are.

 

About things 'pointing' to reality... yes, we label our experiences of our senses, completely agree... but what are those experiences? I experience this chair as solid matter holding me up but we've discovered that most matter is in fact space. Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception. I think the simple answer is: we cannot know what is outside of our own personal consciousness/experience one way or the other, we can only suggest a model for what we perceive.

I believe the dalai lama not just because he is an authority on the subject (that is one reason though). I believe him because what he says aligns with what I have come to know from personal experience. That personal experience tells me that he is a better source of knowledge on buddhism than GIH is. Yes though, I do agree in some sense that all we can ever know is our own consciousness so even if there were an objective world, we would not be able to know it. That does not mean the rejection of an objective world. It just means that the sentient beings experience is never apart from the mind so that we can never be outside of the mind. It does not mean as far as I know that mind is the only reality. For us it is, but not for everything.

If we are talking in terms of Buddhism here, it is primarily concerned with sentient beings and sentient beings understanding of their true nature. Yet sentient beings are not the only things in the universe, they are just one piece. There are insentient things. I do not see that solving one part of the puzzle solves the whole thing.

I am less of a jackass than you, if you think about it.

Whatever you feel, it is not the non-dual presence. That's just logic. Non-duality is not a perception and duality is not a perception either. Non-duality and duality are simply views. For example, if I pick up a spoon from the table, the feeling of the spoon in my hand is neither dual nor non-dual. What's dual about it is my view of what it is exactly I am feeling. My interpretation of what's happening -- that's what's either dual or non-dual. So if you don't understand this much, you simply reveal your ignorance.

I know that you don't see it. I gave you a good link.

Do you mind providing me with a reference? Dalai Lama is not The Pope Of Buddhism, nonetheless I'd like to see this in context.

Is that how you interpret things? I always condescend? I don't agree. But if you want, you can try to adjust my attitude. I welcome your efforts.

It is mind that distinguishes sentient from non-sentient. Without some kind of opinion about the nature of sentience, there is no way to distinguish sentience from the absence of sentience.

 

There is no such thing as something that's inherently insentient. And by "inherently" I mean something that's insentient regardless of mind. It is mind that makes sentient things appear sentient and makes insentient things appear insentient. Outside of mind there is neither sentience nor insentience nor any combination thereof.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?opti...iew&id=2383

The reference is here

"Given these premises, it is very fair to raise the question: is Buddhism suggesting that everything is nothing but projection of our mind?

This is a critical question and one that has elicited different responses from Buddhist teachers. In one camp, great masters have argued that in the final analysis, yes, everything, including our experience of suffering and happiness, is nothing but the projection of our mind.

But there is also another camp, which has vehemently argued against that form of extreme subjectivism. This second camp maintains that although one can, in some sense, understand everything as creations of mind, this does not mean that everything is nothing but the mind. They argue that one must maintain a degree of objectivity that things do exist. Although the consciousness, the mind, plays a role in creating our experience and the world at the same time, they maintain there is an objective world that is accessible to all subjects, all experiences."

And another instance:

http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=417

"The fact that our inner experiences of pleasure and pain are in the nature of subjective mental and cognitive states is very obvious to us. But how those inner subjective events relate to external circumstances and the material world poses a critical problem. The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

Gold, when it comes to Buddhism, I believe the Dalai lama a lot more than I believe you.

As to your assertion about sentience and insentience apart from the mind. Well see my problem is this. Those words sentience and insentience point to things in the world/reality. They are mere labels for dependently orginated things. So our conceptual labeling is not all there is. If there were not processes that happened "out there", we would have no basis for conceptual thinking. That is first there is the appearance and then there is the label. Now I don't think that if you change the label, you change the thing. You change the label. That's all.

In terms of calling it non dual or dual, this presence is non dual. Simple. It is described as non dual by teachers. I have felt that it is non dual. Non dual meaning not dual. Absence of duality. We need to be able to distinguish things and I think your extreme form of subjectivity that says "it's all interpretation" is absurd, dangerous and it eventually collapses unto itself. Now when I say dual or non dual, I am describing relative appearances which are not just nothingness, which are obviously diverse and which need to be distinguished. Ultimately, yes, to fixate something such as non dual or dual as truly existing is an error and so in that sense to assert them is wrong. But there are relative appearances and there is relative identity which can correspond with "fixed" labels.

The way I see this non dual presence is like this: We all have different mindstreams. All of our mindstreams are non dual meaning that that mindstream is undivided from phenomena. One could say that this presence is sort of a field which reaches out and touches all phenomena that are within our particular expanse of experience. Yet, though this mindstream is undivided from phenomena in the field of experience, I see no reason to say that it is the same thing as everything in the field of experience (trees, cars, rain, houses, etc.). A mind and a tree are not the same thing though the mind as seeing cannot be found apart from that tree which is the seen, in experience. The mind is sentient, a tree is insentient.

This also gets into another interesting subject. Right view vs no view. That is, does right view mean that only one specific view is correct or does it mean that ultimately no views are correct?

"external processes independent of the mind" is the realm of no enlightenment.

 

In full enlightenment mind influences matter.

The mind is not inside the body, not outside the body, not inbetween.

The physical body, the mountains, the rivers, empty space and the great earth are all within the wonderful bright true mind.

The wonderful nature is perfect and bright apart from all names and appearances.

I know this. This is non duality. Our individual mind streams are non dual. Yet to say that everything is just the mind in my opinion is not the same...there are sentient and insentient things.

If there is, you can only take it on faith. There is no way to know for sure if objective world exists, because all you have are your subjective senses.

 

Objective world does not exist. But if it did, it would have to be taken on faith and could never be proven or demonstrated.

You don't understand Buddhism then. May I suggest you get a book called "Buddhahood without Meditation" and read it carefully? It addresses this very topic. To give you a quick and short answer, there is no world apart from your mind. In my opinion you're a smart person and you have the capacity to understand a book as lofty as "Buddhahood without Meditation".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-Without-M...6273&sr=8-1

So then you don't understand the meaning of "If a tree falls in the forest" koan.

Thanks for expressing this. It's funny how you came here and taught us all Buddhism in the begging. Remember that? I knew you were ignorant though, but I thought it was hilarious how you were teaching us Buddha Dharma. No harm done. It's all good. Sometimes the only way to learn you are wrong is to try to teach people what you think is right and watch what happens. You have a loooong way ahead of you.

 

Cheers!

Wow I'm sorry but you are a jackass. Ignorant? I know emptiness thoroughly, I've felt the non dual presence that is talked about. Yet in knowing that, I still do not see how there is no world apart from our mind. The Dalai Lama himself has said that there is debate in Buddhism over an objective vs subjective world. So don't think I'm so crazy. I wasn't teaching you Buddhism. I was revealing what I had learned so far and seeing if anybody could help me further my insights. Are you mad that I rejected what you had to say in that PM? After thinking about it, I realized you were wrong and others who post here such as xabir and vajra are right. That's that. You know, I read your posts on here and you are always on your high horse, condescending everybody. You need an attitude adjustment and that is that.

This is an interesting subject to me. Do you think there is an objective world? Objective meaning a world/reality apart from our minds (mindstreams in buddhism)? In Buddhism, the true nature of the mind is empty and non dual yet I still do not think that this denies that there are things which are independent of our minds. Now I don't mean objective as in inherently existing, I mean it as if our minds were not here, everything we see around us would not be here. I do think there is a reality independent or our minds. There is insentient matter and natural dependently originated processes that we can observe taking place that happen without any aid from our mind. I see no reason for those processes to somehow "dissapear" if our minds were not here. I have a hard time expressing myself on this. What do you think?

Not too long ago I re read the famous Zhuangzi butterfly passage. It really got me thinking this time about the nature of the mind.

"Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [but one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things."

After I read this, I PM'ed goldisheavy because what reading this passage got me thinking about was very close to some things that goldisheavy often talks about on this forum. One thing in particular actually - meaning and the unfixed nature of meaning. I think that a lot of us feel that the main function of the mind is to find a perfect, unchanging, fixed "way things are" in reality. For instance, some of us may say that reality or the universe works through dependent origination with dependent origination being defined as specifically "this" and not "that." And the universe doesn't work any other way.

Now, the meaning of dependent origination can change at a whim, can it not? If all of a sudden, we decided to say that dependent origination actually meant that we are all parts in the body of an eternal god, would this new definition be inferior to the typical one? I don't see why not. It would only be inferior if one were to believe that meaning is fixed and there is only one correct, absolute meaning. But meaning is obviously not fixed as just demonstrated. It is fluid, pliable, flexible, etc. This brings in the possibility of seeing the mind as an artist, a painter, a creator instead of a rigid instrument. Think of the world or reality like a blank canvas. The mind then is an artist which paints on the canvas using meaning/words/symbols/thoughts. In this sense, the mind does not discover an existing fixed reality or way things are. Instead, it creates the way things are. And it can change it's creation or paint a new picture at any time. I think this opens up limitless realms of possibility and I think, in a sense, it is true freedom.

Relating this back to Zhuangzi, the meaning of the passage, to me, is that Zhuangzi and the butterfly are not fixed in nature. Zhuangzi can be anything and the butterfly can be anything. They can be one in the same or completely different. It is all up to the mind, to the artist.

Do you think that it is or ever will be actually possible for us to know with 100% certainty what happens after death while we are still alive?

Thought this might make for a good discussion. I'm curious to know what some of the bums think on this subject.

OK, so you have heard. This is fine. Just be aware of what is hearsay and what is not. We necessarily take all kinds of things without demanding proof, and normally it doesn't matter. But if you're a student of life, it begins to matter.

Oh you're completely right. I don't believe anything to be true before rigorous (and I mean rigorous) examination of it. It is easy to be swayed into believing something if it is coming from somebody with a title that entails they have some sort of authority - master, lama, "father"...

Do you know or have you merely heard? There is a difference.

If you realize what rainbow body is, the practices should be obvious. Rainbow body is a body of reality that's been made flexible. Without this flexibility, you could say that all sentient beings have a rainbow body. What inhibits flexibility in your body of reality? Isn't it obvious? What has force to structure your perceived reality? Mind. What has force to structure mind? Beliefs.

My knowledge is according to what I have been told about rainbow body. It is knowledge of popular understanding of rainbow body not direct experiential knowledge.

the teachings of Shakyamuni were indeed about suffering and liberation, the goal being Arhat. but that s not the highest goal, and indeed it is known by Theravadins that Buddhahood is a vastly different goal than Arhat. Enlightenment is not the same as liberation. A Buddha is like a really powerful super hero. I know it sounds cheesy. and I apologize for my lack of eloquence in metaphors but in essence, that's what a Buddha is. Buddhahood = total omniscience, and having the power to help anyone by manifesting in whatever form is best. An Arhat no longer suffers but still has defilements, does not have omniscience, and does not have the means to help other beings.

 

the Rainbow body is the highest goal of Dzogchen, now technically someone who rests in Rigpa constantly does not suffer at all, and thus is liberated... but still practices to attain Rainbow Body because this is practically having infinite power of manifestation to help all beings.

 

V- correct me if i'm wrong

Isn't rainbow body just what happens when one recognizes the clear light at death? Of course, there is also rainbow body that can be attained during life, I know that. What are the practices to attain rainbow body in life other than just resting stably and consistently in true nature?

Also, this may be a big question and kind of out of the blue, but what is rigpa and how is it the same or different from emptiness?

Without the experience, there is no awareness. Awareness is the experience.

So then, when you talk about non dual awareness, you are talking only about experiencing/experience? Non dual then would be that in the experience of a sentient being, the sound and hearing are one, inseparable? You are not saying that sound and hearing are actually one and the same as an ontological fact. Sound and hearing are still different and each originate dependently according to different causes and conditions. You are just saying that purely and only from the experience of sentients, thought thinks, scenery sees, etc?

Right... there is no such thing as a cosmic universal consciousness, that would be reifying consciousness into a Brahman, a metaphysical essence. There are just minds, but even minds being dependently originated are also empty of individual mind-ness... even so, all of them are only of one singular taste, the taste of luminous-empty insubstantial Mind.

 

Padmasambhava: However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

........

Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation

 

Don't do anything whatsoever with the mind --

Abide in an authentic, natural state.

One's own mind, unwavering, is reality.

The key is to meditate like this without wavering;

Experience the Great [reality] beyond extremes.

In a pellucid ocean,

Bubbles arise and dissolve again.

Just so, thoughts are no different from ultimate reality.

So don't find fault; remain at ease.

Whatever arises, whatever occurs,

Don't grasp -- release it on the spot.

Appearances, sounds, and objects are one's own mind;

There's nothing except mind.

Mind is beyond the extremes of birth and death.

The nature of mind, awareness,

Uses the objects of the five senses, but

Does not wander from reality.

In the state of cosmic equilibrium

There is nothing to abandon or practice;

No meditation or post-meditation period.

 

~ Miranda Shaw (tr.) "Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation," in Passionate Enlightenment.

Extracted from: http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/2004...pontaneous.html

 

(great blog, btw)

 

It is not the same yet not different.

 

What you are talking about is the emptiness aspect. I am talking about the union of luminosity and emptiness, the union of non-dual awareness and dependent origination.

 

You have to realise that everything is Mind, clearly luminous and vivid without subject-object duality, but at the same time, everything is Empty.

Well that is what I am trying to do. And so far I am not getting anywhere.

Right... there is no such thing as a cosmic universal consciousness, that would be reifying consciousness into a Brahman, a metaphysical essence. There are just minds, but even minds being dependently originated are also empty of individual mind-ness... even so, all of them are only of one singular taste, the taste of luminous-empty insubstantial Mind.

 

Padmasambhava: However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

........

Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation

 

Don't do anything whatsoever with the mind --

Abide in an authentic, natural state.

One's own mind, unwavering, is reality.

The key is to meditate like this without wavering;

Experience the Great [reality] beyond extremes.

In a pellucid ocean,

Bubbles arise and dissolve again.

Just so, thoughts are no different from ultimate reality.

So don't find fault; remain at ease.

Whatever arises, whatever occurs,

Don't grasp -- release it on the spot.

Appearances, sounds, and objects are one's own mind;

There's nothing except mind.

Mind is beyond the extremes of birth and death.

The nature of mind, awareness,

Uses the objects of the five senses, but

Does not wander from reality.

In the state of cosmic equilibrium

There is nothing to abandon or practice;

No meditation or post-meditation period.

 

~ Miranda Shaw (tr.) "Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation," in Passionate Enlightenment.

Extracted from: http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/2004...pontaneous.html

 

(great blog, btw)

 

It is not the same yet not different.

 

What you are talking about is the emptiness aspect. I am talking about the union of luminosity and emptiness, the union of non-dual awareness and dependent origination.

 

You have to realise that everything is Mind, clearly luminous and vivid without subject-object duality, but at the same time, everything is Empty.

(3 October, 2009)

 

(11:25 PM) Thusness: u must always know that we do not deny luminosity but the empty nature must be realized

what must teachers focus is the luminosity aspect

(11:25 PM) Thusness: the brillant cognizance

(11:26 PM) Thusness: some neglect the brillant bright and over skewed towards emptiness

u must be able to integrate the 2

(11:26 PM) Thusness: it is vivid clear but empty

therefore like a dream but not a dream

(11:27 PM) Thusness: many mistaken that buddha talk about illusion

like a dream

(11:28 PM) Thusness: but all manifestation are just so, there is no exception

(11:28 PM) Thusness: formation after formation, manifestation after manifestation...endlessly according to DO

(11:29 PM) Me: what do u mean by buddha talk about illusoin

(11:30 PM) Thusness: Buddha taught that life and samsara are like dreams

but he was telling us that reality is dream like

like painting on a pond

(11:31 PM) Thusness: u must understand this clearly

that whatever DO is SO

(11:31 PM) Thusness: there is no exception

 

(11:33 PM) Thusness: luminosity is like magical display

it is the very display

(11:33 PM) Thusness: that is why it is illusion like

Yes, luminosity is the magical display. The magical display is appearances is it not? What else would it be? So emptiness + appearances...?

If not, then what is luminosity to you? Maybe it would help if we defined our terms.

And I'm quoting what I said here again because I want you to speak to it and I think it may be near what you are saying...

"Awareness is not a source. It just IS everything. I did not mean by this that, for instance, trees are aware - that trees can think and feel. I meant that a tree's shape IS seeing awareness, the tree's sound IS hearing awareness. The tree is not aware, the tree IS awareness whether sentient beings are present or not.

As another example, my physical body is formed from various causes and conditions. But, it also cannot be without awareness. It's shape is seeing awareness, it's sound is hearing awareness, etc. These causes and conditions are also awareness."

Minds... not mind.

Could you explain this?

It's good you understand that non-duality in Buddhism is not because everything is one substance, or arising from a single substratum or source, but rather that all the multitudes of things are just empty of inherent existence, so it's a non-substantial non-duality.

First of all Xabir, vajra said this earlier in this thread. Now this is non duality according to him. It seems to me that you are talking about a different non duality than he is. Perhaps you have realized something he has not. But you two are two of the biggest buddhism experts on this board and I have not heard him say what you have been saying to me regarding non duality.

First of all.. mindstreams are not dependent but mutually dependent on matter as explained earlier. The mindstream can exist (in the relative, non-independent sense) without body, can exist without the 5 senses, in a sense of purely mental realm, during death, sleep, or meditative absorptions. This mindstream thus transcends bodily death and is a process that continues from lifetime to lifetime without being in any way an independent, permanent essence, soul, or atman. The mindstream is entirely phenomenal and continues as a process.

 

So does plants have mind? No, they do not have mind (in buddhism the sixth sense), plus they do not have the 5 senses. Sentient beings have minds, and usually have the rest of the 5 senses.

Both internal (thoughts and mental realm) and external phenomena (sensory perception), so to speak, are non-dual awareness. Non-dual awareness isn't dependent on them, it IS them (the experience of thoughts, sensory awareness, etc), and the entire display of phenomena itself dependently originates along with all the factors and conditions that gives rise to the moment of manifestation.

All that you experience are Mind itself, they are not external to Mind. Usually we experience mountains, rivers, as 'out there' and I/my mind is 'in here' looking at 'that thing'.

 

In non-dual experience the duality of inner and outer division dissolves and there is no longer the sense that there is a separate 'you' experiencing everything, but rather, all there is is Everything experiencing itself. Hence you no longer have the view of a separate mind but see that All is Mind. What we originally thought to be a 'mind' inside our head turns out to be all the manifestation itself. The mountain, the rivers, are all manifestation of Mind, there's no longer a sense that it's 'outside' -- it's all Mind, while understanding that this Mind is not an independent substratum and source of things but rather is pointing to the fact that our true nature (luminosity and emptiness inseparable) is not other than all the entire display.

Ok I get the mindstream part but I still do not know what you are getting at in terms of non duality. I have said awareness IS phenomena. You said yes that is correct. I then brought that statement to it's logical conclusion -

1.) awareness is phenomena

2.) for there to be phenomena there must be awareness

3.) there was a time when sentient beings capable of awareness were not present on earth.

4.) since there were phenomena before there were sentient beings then awareness was present before sentient beings were present

Now I said that awareness IS all dependently originated and impermanent phenomena in the sense that phenomena cannot be without awareness. Awareness is not a source. It just IS everything. I did not mean by this that, for instance, trees are aware - that trees can think and feel. I meant that a tree's shape IS seeing awareness, the tree's sound IS hearing awareness. The tree is not aware, the tree IS awareness whether sentient beings are present or not.

As another example, my physical body is formed from various causes and conditions. But, it also cannot be without awareness. It's shape is seeing awareness, it's sound is hearing awareness, etc. These causes and conditions are also awareness.

Now, you said this is an incorrect understanding. And now you wrote this

"What we originally thought to be a 'mind' inside our head turns out to be all the manifestation itself. The mountain, the rivers, are all manifestation of Mind, there's no longer a sense that it's 'outside' -- it's all Mind"

...which seems to be in agreement with what you said was incorrect before. I'm sorry if I am making this hard. It is just not clear to me what you mean.

By 'manifestation' I'm saying, experience.

 

Awareness is the experience. The experience of a red flower is awareness. The experience of bird chirping is awareness. The experience of thought is awareness. There is no seer, thinker, feeler, separate from the flow... but rather there is just the entire flow of experiences/experiencing which dependently originates. We are sentient beings endowed with the sense organs and can experience (just using 'I' as a convention here, I don't mean to say there is a separate experiencer). Inanimate things are insentient and cannot experience.

 

And experience arises dependent with all other conditions and factors which includes non-sentient elements (i.e. the five elements, fire, water etc etc.). Water and fire itself are non-sentient, without minds, and cannot experience itself. Without sense organs what kind of experience can it have? None. But with our sense organs and with the sense objects, the sensory consciousness of having seen, felt, water and fire, etc. manifests. And there are six kinds of consciousness (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental consciousness). So the context of the manifestation is all these factors and conditions, it is not a metaphysical substance of the universe or something of that sort.

 

Under the influence of ignorance, dualistic consciousness split into subject and object arise, but with wisdom, one experiences all these as the radiance of non-dual awareness. The same non-dual manifestation wrongly perceived (i.e. dualistically, inherently) is ignorance/samsara, the same manifestation rightly perceived is wisdom/nirvana. There is no other non-dual awareness apart from these manifestations.

 

Awareness is all that is manifest, there is no other unmanifest or unborn thing transcending manifestation. This is eternalism. There can be freedom from grasping to manifestation, but there is no metaphysical essence that transcends manifestation. Rather all there is is manifestation arising moment to moment along with the context of all the factors and conditions.

 

I believe this post should also clarify rebel and thuscomeone's questions.

Ok Xabir, I'm back. So awareness being non dual to you means that it depends upon external phenomena in order to be? So awareness and external phenomena are linked together in that way and in that sense they are non dual. Non dual that you are talking about is not that awareness and external phenomena are one in the same but are just linked together through dependent arising aka awareness cannot be without external phenomena. So you are just talking about dependent origination...?

And I found this quote from the shurangama sutra. What does this mean to you?

"Your mind and your body, and all the mountains, rivers, and spaces of the

earth are merely phenomena that exist within the One Bright True Mind."

Hmmm I don't think that what thuscomeone is trying to get at has been properly attended to yet. I think (but I don't know!) that he is trying to say that, or ask if, this awareness - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, - that is inseperable from phenomena and that phenomena cannot BE without was present before there were any sentient beings on the earth. If there were phenomena at that time and even without sentient beings, this awareness had to be present. Thus if that were true, it would prove that this awareness does not come into being only when sentient beings are around. In other words, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching do not only come from sentient beings. Thus this awareness would not depend upon sentient beings. If it were to be dependent on sentient beings, that would mean that phenomena themselves are dependent on sentient beings and cannot be without sentient beings. That seems absurd and can't be what this is pointing to, can it? So, anyway, this awareness would be an awareness that, one could say, is objectively present at all times. It is and always has been, whether there are sentient beings or not. Sentient beings thus do not create this awareness, it does not come into being solely with them, rather what is already ever present is experienced subjectively, or one could say "tuned" into, by individual human beings dependent upon the conditions of their ears, eyes, noses, etc...

Make any sense? lol

Yes Yes! This is it! I couldn't figure out how to word it properly. You've said it better than I could.

DHARMA TALK ON ONE MIND

by Bassui Tokusho Zenji

If you would free yourself of the sufferings of the Six Realms, you must learn the direct way to become a Buddha. This way is no other than the realization of your own Mind. Now what is this Mind? It is the true nature of all sentient beings, that which existed before our parents were born and hence before our own birth, and which presently exists, unchangeable and eternal. So it is called one's Face before one's parents were born. This Mind is intrinsically pure. When we are born it is not newly created, and when we die it does not perish. It has no distinction of male or female, not has it any coloration of good or bad. It cannot be compared with anything, so it is called Buddha-nature. Yet countless thoughts issue from this Self-nature as waves arise in the ocean or as images are reflected in a mirror.

If you want to realize your own Mind, you must first of all look into the source from which thoughts flow. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, profoundly ask yourself, "What is my own Mind?" with an intense yearning to resolve this question. This is called "training" or "practice" or "desire for truth" or "thirst for realization." What is termed Zazen is no more than looking into one's own mind. It is better to search your own mind devotedly than to read and recite innumerable sutras and dharani every day for countless years. Such endeavors, which are but formalities, produce some merit, but this merit expires and again you must experience the suffering of the Three Evil Paths. Because searching one's own mind leads ultimately to enlightenment, this practice is a prerequisite to becoming a Buddha. No matter whether you have committed either the ten evil deeds or the five deadly sins, still if you turn back your mind and enlighten yourself, you are a Buddha instantly. But do not commit sins and expect to be saved by enlightenment [from the effects of your own actions. Neither enlightenment] nor a Buddha nor a Patriarch can save a person who, deluding himself, goes down evil ways.

Imagine a child sleeping next to its parents and dreaming it is being beaten or is painfully sick. The parents cannot help the child no matter how much it suffers, for no one can enter the dreaming mind of another. If the child could awaken itself, it could be freed of this suffering automatically. In the same way, one who realizes that his own Mind is Buddha frees himself instantly from the sufferings arising from [ignorance of the law of] ceaseless change of birth-and-death. If a Buddha could prevent it, do you think he would allow even one sentient being to fall into hell? Without Self-Realization one cannot understand such things as these.

What kind of master is it that this very moment sees colors with the eyes and hears voices with the ears, that now raises the hands and moves the feet? We know these are functions of our own mind, but no one knows precisely how they are performed. It may be asserted that behind these actions there is no entity, yet it is obvious they are being performed spontaneously. Conversely, it may be maintained that these are the acts of some entity; still the entity is invisible. If one regards this question as unfathomable, all attempts to reason [out an answer] will cease and one will be at a loss to know what to do. In this propitious state deepen and deepen the yearning, tirelessly, to the extreme. When the profound questioning penetrates to the very bottom, and that bottom is broken open, not the slightest doubt will remain that your own Mind is itself Buddha, the Void-universe. There will then be no anxiety about life or death, no truth to search for.

In a dream you may stray and lose your way home. You ask someone to show you how to return or you pray to God or Buddhas to help you, but still you can't get home. Once you rouse yourself from your dream-state, however, you find that you are in your own bed and realize that the only way you could have gotten home was to awaken yourself. This (kind of spiritual awakening] is called "return to the origin" or "rebirth in paradise." It is the kind of inner realization that can be achieved with some training. Virtually all who like Zazen and make an effort in practice, be they laymen or monks, can experience to this degree. But even such [partial] awakening cannot be attained except through the practice of Zazen. You would be making a serious error, however, were you to assume that this was true enlightenment in which there is no doubt about the nature of reality. You would be like a man who having found copper gives up the desire for gold.

Upon such realization question yourself even more intensely in this wise: "My body is like a phantom, like bubbles on a stream. My mind, looking into itself, is as formless as empty-space, yet somewhere within sounds are perceived. Who is hearing?" Should you question yourself in this wise with profound absorption, never slackening the intensity of your effort, your rational mind eventually will exhaust itself and only questioning at the deepest level will remain. Finally you will lose awareness of your own body. Your long-held conceptions and notions will perish, after absolute questioning, in the way that every drop of water vanishes from a tub broken open at the bottom, and perfect enlightenment will follow like flowers suddenly blooming on withered trees.

With such realization you achieve true emancipation. But even now repeatedly cast off what has been realized, turning back to the subject that realizes, that is, to the root bottom, and resolutely go on. Your Self-nature will then grow brighter and more transparent as your delusive feelings perish, like a gem gaining luster under repeated polishing, until at last it positively illumines the entire universe. Don't doubt this! Should your yearning be too weak to lead you to this state in your present lifetime, you will undoubtedly gain Self-realization easily in the next, provided you are still engaged in this questioning at death, just as yesterday's work half done was finished easily today.

While you are doing Zazen neither despise nor cherish the thoughts that arise; only search your own mind, the very source of these thoughts. You must understand that anything appearing in your consciousness or seen by your eyes is an illusion, of no enduring reality. Hence you should neither fear nor be fascinated by such phenomena. If you keep your mind as empty as space, unstained by extraneous matters, no evil spirits can disturb you even on your deathbed. While engaged in Zazen, however, keep none of this counsel in mind. You must only become the question "What is this Mind?" or "What is it that hears these sounds?" When you realize this Mind you will know that it is the very source of all Buddhas and sentient beings. The Bodhisattva Kannon is so called because he attained enlightenment by perceiving -i.e., grasping the source of the sounds of the world about him.

At work, at rest, never stop trying to realize who it is that hears. Even though your questioning becomes almost unconscious, you won't find the one who hears, and all your efforts will come to naught. Yet sounds can be heard, so question yourself to an even profounder level. At last every vestige of self-awareness will disappear and you will feel like a cloudless sky. Within yourself you will find no "I," nor will you discover anyone who hears. This Mind is like the void, yet it hasn't a single spot that can be called empty. This state is often mistaken for Self-realization. But continue to ask yourself even more intensely, "Now who is it that hears?" If you bore and bore into this question, oblivious to anything else; even this feeling of voidness will vanish and you will be unaware of anything-total darkness will prevail. [Don't stop here, but] keep asking with all your strength, "What is it that hears?" Only when you have completely exhausted the questioning will the question burst; now you will feel like a man come back from the dead. This is true realization. You will see the Buddhas of all the universes face to face and the Patriarchs past and present. Test yourself with this koan: "A monk asked Joshu: 'What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming to China?' Joshu replied: 'The oak tree in the garden.' " Should this koan leave you with the slightest doubt, you need to resume questioning, "What is it that hears?"

If you don't come to realization in this present life, when will you? Once you have died you won't be able to avoid a long period of suffering in the Three Evil Paths. What is obstructing realization? Nothing but your own half-hearted desire for truth. Think of this and exert yourself to the utmost.

-

Any Koan masters here know the meaning of this?

"A monk asked Joshu: 'What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming to China?' Joshu replied: 'The oak tree in the garden.' "