thuscomeone

I just want one thing. GIH, you are all about the mind. Mind this and mind that. But you've yet to give any sort of clear explanation of what you believe the mind to be. You continue to dodge the question every time I ask you by turning the question back on me.

Even the highest truth can at least be pointed to with words. Nobody would object to that. If you can't even communicate it then it is just nonsensical.

So please, if you can, communicate to me clearly and succinctly what you believe mind to be.

So why do you think one bit of illusion is better than another? Why advocate one over the other if you know both situations are illusory?

Say you have one phantom. Not two. The first phantom denies the presence of a second phantom. Though it may be a phantom, it can still be right or wrong.

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind.

 

"All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind.

 

Waking life is not really different.

 

I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"...

Yes it is very clear that mind is dependently arisen.

See, what I mean by "false concepts" is what I think you mean in your second paragraph. The illusion of solidity is created by mind. The mind is not the actual creator of everything (or are you saying it is?), just of false solidity.

Yes, indeed, everything is just mind/perception which is like an illusion - insubstantial, unlocatable, ungraspable.

 

But... I would like to quote Thrangu Rinpoche here:

 

"The Dzogchen and Mahamudra instructions tell us that we must recognize and then train in seeing that throughout their inception, duration and disappearance every perception and every mental image is an empty cognizance. Both practice systems consider it very important to train in acknowledging that the perceived is the light of dharmakaya, in other words, that we recognize the nature that is innate to every perception. At first glance, this appears to correspond to the view of the Mind-Only school, which asserts that whatever you experience is only mind. it is an interesting perspective, but one to which the Middle Way school raises objections. For instance, in his Ornament of the Middle Way, the eminent Indian scholar Shantarakshita says that though it is fine to declare that whatever we experience is mind only, we still need to question whether it is reasonable to claim that the mind itself ultimately exists. In other words, the Mind-Only point of view is good in the sense of establishing that perceptions are mind, but we still need to question whether mind itself has ultimate substance. It is very important and useful to train in all perceptions being the light of dharmakaya."

 

 

In Buddhism, everything is not established, rigpa is not established, mind is not established... therefore we do not subsume things into an ultimate source/mind - everything is mind, and it is this luminous mind/perception that is insubstantial, like an illusion.

So, in other words, mind is dependently arisen? aka neither mind nor matter have primacy over one another.

When I hear "all is mind", I take it to mean that all false concepts and discriminations arise from mind.

It has been my experience that a lot of people will dismiss what I say and also Thusness's 7 stages as nonsense, purely out of lack of experience and ignorance.

 

But when they realize what we realize, they will come to appreciate the precision of what we say...

But I mean this isn't easy stuff. This completely shatters the frame most people live their lives in and it ain't so easy to understand at first either.

But I have to thank you immensely for maintaining that blog. It has helped me through many a dark night (no pun intended).

You're welcome.

And thank you!

thuscomeone, have you read Mahamudra teachings?

I've read some. From what I've gathered, their enlightenment isn't much different than mahayana enlightenment/prajnaparamita.

The natural state in the two seems to be the same -- effortless suchness.

If insights of anatta and emptiness is present, the master will very clearly present it. Like my link I showed you. It will not be vague. Whatever expressed so far only show substantial non-dual realization.

Yes, it could certainly be more clear.

Could I recommend you something to read? I think you'd like it. It is a series of letters from a young japanese woman to her roshi. She wrote them on her deathbed, as she was sick and slowly dying. The letters reveal the deep level of enlightenment she reached in just a few weeks before her death. It is pretty amazing. I would definitely say that she got beyond substantial non-dualism. The roshi even claimed that she had reached the highest level possible under a master. Her name was Yaeko Iwasaki and the letters were published in a book called "The Three Pillars of Zen." I'm unsure if you can find the book online...

Not the same. Your stage nine is saying everything is expressing an inherent essence/Awareness.

 

Means everything is the same Awareness. Sound is Awareness expressing itself as sound, Sight is Awareness expressing itself as sight, etc.

 

This is substantial non-duality, like Ken Wilber's description in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

Again, I don't think inherent here is referring to a substance, but the inherent potential of emptiness. But I don't really know. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

You are not seeing what it says. You are caught up in words but not understanding what it's pointing at. Just because it says 'shunyata' means it is shunyata?

 

"In this picture there is no subject and no object; the man and the ox have both disappeared. But there is also no idea of negating the existence of the man or the ox. All opposites dissolve into the ground of being."

 

In other words? Subject and object subsumed into inherent oneness. Substantial non-duality.

 

To me, no-mind is like PCE. There is just the multiplicity. There is no more referencing back to a Self or a substantial Oneness.

 

Yet....

 

It may simply be an experience, without the realization. When realization arises, no-mind is effortless and natural and implicitly so.

 

For example, someone at substantial non-dual may at times have no-mind experience, where they forget the source and what's left is just the world. Yet because they have not had realization, they did not overcome their view of inherency, so they will keep referencing back.

 

The realization is that 'in seeing always just the seen, in hearing always just the heard'... effectively awareness is just a label for the self-luminous process, there is no agent and no inherent source.

 

And you might not see dependent arising in no-mind. Actualism never talked about dependent arising but 'no mind' is everywhere in their teachings.

It says not empty and not full. So I think it is not referring to a substantial ground, but to emptiness as a potential. But who really knows.

You stage nine seems to be just like the one I posted. They both emphasize "just this" or, as you say, anatta.

You are way too concerned about maps.

 

I have studied various maps myself, but in most occasions I am disappointed by their lack of certain insights. Do you think the insights of anatta or shunyata is even presented in the map you just posted? It is only substantial non-dual. Most Zen masters, if they even get to non-dual, stops here (there are of course, exceptions).

 

I prefer you to read this commentary about the ten ox-herding pictures, at least the commentary of Stage 9 is very clear about Anatta: http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html

 

However I have to state, the original text (contrast to the commentary which does show insight) of the 10 herding doesn't show Anatta insight.

 

It is about the realization of I AM, then training, practicing, and refining the experience until one stabilizes in No-Mind experience. If you didn't know, No-Mind experience is not the same as realization of Anatta. It can simply be a peak experience. Anatta is a permanent realization, not just an experience.

I love maps! They're so much fun.

Stage eight on my map sounds like shunyata to me. At least close. No-mind is not the same as anatta, but it is close. No-mind closed the gap on any sort of permanent, independent awareness or self and affirms multiplicity. Beginning to see into dependent arising.

This has been a realization for me, not just an experience. But I sometimes get caught up in things and must remind myself.

Check out stages nine and ten. Sounds strangely familiar.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Zen%20Poetry/About%20the%20Ten%20Ox%20Herding%20Pictures/Zen%20Master%20Ji%20Bong%20-%20The%20ten%20ox-herding%20pictures.htm

Mind and matter are interdependent relatively... non-arising, like an illusion, ultimately.

Right. Because they arise dependently, they don't actually arise. And vice versa.

I only say that I have attained based on the zen literature I have read and the immense peace within this realization. I equate samyak sambodhi with the 10th oxherding picture, tozan's fifth rank, etc. Hell, I equate it with thusness' level 7.

Perhaps it is a greater realization, but if it were, it would certainly be an elusive one that I have never heard spoken of in zen.

Can you elaborate on this through examples? How something is continuous and discontinuous at the same time?

 

When you say there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space, do you mean there is time but it is experienced as if there is no time, or that there is space but it is experienced as if there is no space? (I ask because you used "ness" a descriptive suffix)

 

Or when you said "both" were you pointing to timeless and time together saying there is both? Or that there is both space and spaceless? What exactly is "spaceless"...

 

And why does it follow that since there is both means there is neither?

 

It's very difficult to understand enlightened one! Can you dumb it down using your all accommodating wisdom for this less than able practitioner?

I'll try.

I'll use a famous example from the genjokoan -- firewood and ash. Firewood is firewood and is not ash. Firewood is distinct. But at the same time, one should not suppose that the firewood is gone when there is ash. The firewood is still present in the ash because if it weren't for the firewood, there would be no ash. The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present. As Dogen says, ash and firewood fully contain past and future and yet are fully cut off from past and future.

Time and space require division. When past, present and future are all together, where is time? When mind and matter are together, where is space?

But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time. And this togetherness of mind and matter is occuring in a very specific space.

So this means that things are not the same and not different.

If you say that they are both the same and different, it is essentially the same as saying they are neither the same or different. Not same affirms difference. Not different affirms sameness.

Whatever way you put it, it still comes out the same. The point that you come to, either way, is that concepts ultimately don't apply because they all suppose "is" and "is not." Both positions are incompatible with how things actually are.

You seem to take everything so personal for someone who is without a self. .

 

Anyways, I was looking back through the thread and realized that this whole thing really came from our discussion of moments and whether it was continuous or not.

 

Can you, as someone who has entered perfect enlightenment, answer whether it is continuous or discontinuous?

It's far from perfect. Rather, it's perfection in imperfection.

But anyway, moments are both continuous and discontinuous. That is to say, there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space. And ultimately, since there is both, there is neither, and no concept can touch what is.

This is correct.

 

 

 

Wrong. My views reflect reason. I cling to reason and not to pride.

 

 

 

Wrong. First of all, I do listen to xabir. When I listen to xabir I hear ignorance and I don't take it seriously. It's not like I tune out xabir because his name is "xabir". I evaluate each of his posts on a case by case basis. If he says good things, I cheer them. If not, I poo-poo them.

 

Overall I claim that xabir is far from enlightened. He's quite ignorant and is not to be trusted as an authority. He can be a good Dharma friend though, but he's not a master or a Guru.

 

I have exactly the same opinion about Thusness. Thusness can be a good Dharma friend, but again, he's ignorant overall and not to be relied on as a Guru or a master.

 

But I'll go even further than that. Even if I thought that someone was worthy of the title "master" I would still urge people to think for themselves. I would not recommend that anyone start to follow the master.

 

 

 

You want me to give up critical thinking and personal experience? I'm surprised you advocate following an external authority. I thought you'd be going around urging people to think for themselves, like I do. Turns out you do just the opposite of that, what a disappointment. Who is your authority?

Thusness and Xabir are ignorant overall? Of course. And you're the only one who really knows what's going on. You've got the inside scoop. Man, you really think your you know what doesn't stink, don't you?

...

I'm not talking about organized Religion. I'm into mystics, those that dive into the mystery and actually attain Buddhahood. There are plenty of awakened lineages out there too, enough to where you don't have to think that "'I' alone know the truth, and you should listen to ME."

 

I don't need to argue the content of your posts, there is no point, you always think you are right, plus I agree with you most of the time. But, there is something lack humility about you that I see directly. Not that I know anything.

 

Yes it's an observation I share concerning your posts more as a warning to other people. There are plenty here with more pride and big headiness, but you are powerful with it due to what you do know. But, also with what you don't know.

Right. He knows some important things. But he won't go any further and admit that he doesn't really know everything I.e, the real meaning of dependent arising, the fact that Buddha's teaching isn't about a cosmic consciousness, etc. etc.

Not nice .

 

When your certainty is broken again and again, it can become very detrimental to trusting your own intelligence and meditation. Hence, I just suggested for you to give it some time.

 

Until then, enjoy your anuttara samyak sambodhi, "thuscomeone."

I am more certain than I have ever been before.

I will enjoy it. Thanks again.

Is this a hypothetical "you" or are you talking about me? If you're talking about a generic hypothetical "you", then you're just ignorant when you say that the mind is something particular. If your use of "you" is meant to refer to me, then not only are you ignorant, but you impute your own ignorance on me as well and on what I say, without bothering to understand anything I say. That's much worse.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "just a convenient label"? Why is it convenient?

 

 

 

Tell me if this description is accurate: You think that matter really exists independent of mind. In other words, if all the brains were destroyed, it is your belief that the world of matter would go on without any minds in it. Isn't that what you believe?

 

If my description above of your belief is an accurate one, I ask you to please stop saying "things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent" because you have no idea what that implies and you have no right to use that phrase.

It's a general "you" that could refer to anyone. Another red herring. I understand what you say. I just don't put much stock in it.

"convenient" means that, since reality utimately transcends all concepts, all "is" and "is nots", "mind" is a tool to point to something and communicate. Nothing more.

No, that is not at all what I believe. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made it clear that that is not what I believe. I have made it clear that I don't assert the primacy of mind over matter, or matter over mind. They arise together, as I have said.

I shouldn't say that? I don't know what it means? Oh, of course, because I'm the one with a view of awareness as a self existing and permanent source (which, by the way, is a view I showed to be completely illogical a few posts back, which you just ignored).

Yeah, ok dude.

@ Thuscomeone

 

I don't understand all this certainty about the dharma you are displaying again and again.

 

The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that and I KNOW FOR SURE, has been your attitude from the beginning of this thread. In conversations with Xabir, Vaj, me, and Gold you've been proven to be mistaken often times. You've shifted positions fairly quickly only to defend it strongly again, imposing your conceptual frame on others, until a certain contradiction is inevitably pointed out again. It's like you're in some hurry to be enlightened to get it over with so you can say "I got it!"

 

Give all this some thought and time you are moving too quickly instead of considering things carefully.

Personally, I don't put too much value on your opinion. No offense. But you haven't proven to be insightful at all yourself throughout this thread. The only faults and position shifts I have made were in the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have been on a straight track. And I admitted my earlier ones. Please get over it. Or get some actual insight yourself, so you can move out of the peanut gallery and actually contribute something worthwhile. Thanks.

And I'm at a point where I've put in enough work to be able to say with certainty that, yeah, I do pretty much get it. I believe Xabir could verify. But I'm not asking him to do so haha.

Here's what you said just a moment ago:

 

 

 

Continuing...

 

 

 

I was going to tell you if you answered my question.

There is no contradiction. When you talk about mind, you are referring to a particular. When you talk about the emptiness of mind, you are not talking about a particular -- you are referring to what I called universe, or non-duality. So in the second case, you aren't really speaking of mind. In that case, mind is just a convenient label. As I have said many times in this thread, things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent.

No.

 

 

 

Most beings, including you, cherish misconceptions regarding their own minds. They conceive of mind as something particular, and this is one of the principal causes of cycling in Samsara.

 

 

 

Matter does not exist according to "The All" Sutta.

 

 

 

If I tell you about what I mean by the word "mind" will you try to look for it as some kind of object?

Mind is not particular or non-particular. Ironically, for all your relativism, you fail to see this point.

It doesn't have to be physical to be present. A thought is clearly here, but I can't see it. For the last time, it is neither something or nothing.

You aren't going to tell me. I'm wasting my time. Bye.

It works like shit and you know it. Mind is a much better word.

 

Read this to understand why "universe" is a shit word:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Lo

"Universe" suggests something that exists beyond the sense bases. It's not "more vague." It's actually crystal clear. Universe is something Stephen Hawking would talk about.

 

 

 

If I tell you what I mean by "mind" will you try to look for it as an object of some sort?

 

 

 

The deathless is not beyond the mind. Buddha perceives the deathless how? Does Buddha jump outside of his mind to perceive the deathless?

Christ, get off of it. It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular. Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

I said that it includes the mind. Since it is not non existent. But it is also beyond the mind. Since it is not existent. It is the creative potential that allows for both mind and matter.

Just tell me what you mean by mind. Quit avoiding it. You either can or can't.

I get the sense that you have very strong personal views which you have developed on your own over the years. You cling to these views because of your pride -- you came to them to them all on your own so you can't give them up. You won't listen to xabir because you think he can't think for himself. But you would learn a lot if you accepted an authority other than your own.