thuscomeone

Karma and original sin are both suspect, in my view. I really don't think our actions have any consequences beyond this lifetime; I would be surprised if they did. Even if there is such a thing as rebirth, I don't believe our actions influence the result of future rebirths. And I don't think the simple act of pouring water over someone's head (Catholicism) can remove his original human depravity, because none exists to begin with. Life is meant to be lived to the fullest, without fear of being punished in some future life or lives.

 

All these concepts of "sin" and "karma" and "morality" are purely human constructs. That is not to say, however, that some actions are not objectively harmful to others, because they are. But to posit some future punishment for "karma" or "sin" is ridiculous. Both karma and sin operate from a child's sense of morality; I must do such and such, because if I don't, I will get punished. And if I am a good boy I will get such and such as a reward.

 

I've always questioned notions like "heaven" and "hell" because there is no such thing as an absolutely "heavenly" or "hellish" experience. Everything is relative. My existence on earth is heavenly to a Sudanese refugee, but it might be hellish to a Wall Street fat cat.

Good post. Morality, good and bad are completely arbitrary/relative. Karma sounds to me like an absolutist sense of morality. "This" is good absolutely. "That" is bad absolutely. I just don't think life is that black and white.

Ah, so much for clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone .

"clearing up" was clearing up what I have learned myself so far and then sharing it with others

The insight of no doer can arise even at the lower I AM stages. It can arise at Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, it is an important condition for true nondual and anatta insight but by itself it is not yet the realisation of Anatta. There is an article by Galen Sharp called An Exploration of NON-VOLITIONAL LIVING which is pretty explicit on the no-doership aspect but still holds tightly onto the sense of an Eternal Witness or the I AMness. It then becomes like thoughts and actions happen on its own without a doer, you are simply the watcher of these phenomena.

 

What is key and crucial is the absence of a Subject or a metaphysical Self in Stage 5. That is, there is not even any trace of a permanent Brahman that is "one with all objects".... apart from those non-substantial self-aware sensations which manifests vividly and yet subsides simultaneously leaving no traces, like drawing images on water doesn't leave traces, there is no metaphysical essence there, only vivid impermanent sensations. Realising this is the first aspect of emptiness and is the experiential insight of anatta, or Stage 5. Then there is Stage 6 which is about further emptying the object and realising dependent origination.

Well yes, if all is empty (as it is) there cannot possibly be brahman. For brahman is eternal and is self, truly existent. If all is empty then reifying anything eternal such as brahman (or, of course, reifying nihilism) is an error. So this awareness is empty, ungraspable, not existent, non existent, both or neither.

Yes the difference between subject object non duality stage 4 and 5 is that 5 is no subject as in the absence of doer? Just happening, manifesting. And this awareness we are speaking of is empty/non inherently existent because it is dependently originated and impermanent phenomena.

And this factor of it's emptiness seems to be the main difference between Buddhism and other traditions that teach about awareness

my view is not that there is a transcendent consciousness apart from phenomena. I'm simply saying what you have been saying. Wherever there is phenomena, there must be awareness. They are inseparable. So it is not transcendent. It is phenomena themselves. This is why I said that this awareness had to be present before me or you or human beings came to be. It has to be present for there to be phenomena to begin with. That's what I'm saying. That is the logical outcome of saying that "phenomena are awareness."

Consciousness and matter are mutually dependent yet not identical, both are totally empty and insubstantial, but we do not say that consciousness is the side effect of matter as the materialists think.

Yes "ordinary" consciousness and matter are both mutually dependent. But the root of what I'm getting at here is that without "awareness" which is different than both of them yet seems to underlie them, neither of them could be...?

I've never understood why some people say that Buddhist realization is mystical, outside logic or transcends logic. It's the most logical thing there is!

Who are the people who say this about Buddhism?

Well mainly zen folks but I've heard others too...

I've got it! The universe/phenomena/reality/"what is" cannot logically "be" without awareness. It is impossible!

One way I used to gain certainty in this awareness is to look at it this way: there had to be a universe before I was born, otherwise how would I have been born? And there had to be a universe before human beings came into existence. And form/shape is inseparable from seeing, sound is inseparable from hearing, smells are inseparable from smelling. Thus before I or human beings ever were, there had to be this awareness which IS phenomena, without which there cannot be a universe. It's so logical! I've never understood why some people say that Buddhist realization is mystical, outside logic or transcends logic. It's the most logical thing there is!

That is closer... but not quite it. Because awareness is not even 'part of the flow', it is all of the flow, there is not even a 'thing' called awareness other than the bird chirping, the scenery, the thoughts arising and passing, the sensations... there is just that, there is no other thing called 'awareness'. Rather, all phenomena is self-aware, and this is what non-duality truly means (however not everyone will understand the term in the same way, there's a lot of subtleties there too...)

 

Awareness is truly not an separate entity, it has no existence apart from everything, but even the 'everything' is empty, as I told lucky and isn't 'inherent existence' (but mirage-like, dependently originated appearances). However this is not the denial of the vivid non-dual luminosity/awareness. The clear vivid awareness which is non-dual must be realised and experienced. Just that it's empty nature must be understood.

 

The phenomena are diverse, yet never has awareness ever been separated from all phenomena/the flow, as it is. Never has an observer been separated from an observed. This fact will always be so.

I sense that something is about to burst in my understanding here...but I...just...can't...break...through...

It's like it is right on the tip of my tongue.

Ok wait, there cannot be sound without hearing. And there cannot be hearing without sound. Wherever there is form, there must be seeing, etc. But I think I've realized the problem here. It is not an "I" that sees. It is not my consciousness that hears. For if hearing and sound were inseperable, then when I plug my ears, there are no more sounds in the universe. It starts to seem like all is in my mind - solipsism. Rather awareness being inseparable from phenomena is a natural condition for there to be anything at all in the universe to begin with. Thus there is not even "awareness" and "phenomena" as two rather there is just impermanent and dependently originated manifestation/happening which is awareness/phenomena inseperablitiy. I just need to get out of this solipsistic position, the my position, which is proving to be difficult at the moment...

alright Xabir, I think I may have gotten this non duality thing down. Ok, so we can say that all there really is is this flow. And consciousness/awareness is just another part of the flow (?). It is just another happening or manifestation of this flow. In this sense, awareness and phenomena are not seperate. As everything, awareness and phenomena, is just the flow there can be no separation between observer and observed. They are both the same flow that is all there is. I don't really know how to address what I'm trying to get across accurately. It seems hard to express it...

But that also couldn't mean that there is no distinction or obvious diversity/difference of awareness and phenomena. Just that they are inseparable in the sense that they are part of the same process/flow...

Great post thuscomeone, and great work for eight month's!

I have a naive question here.

When did and where did

"Actual existents must be constants" become a standard for saying and measuring whether something is real or not?

For example if a plant grows dies, yet reappears next spring over and over and then over time the plant changes its form as adaptation to a changing environment does that mean it doesn't exist? Even if its environment were to disappear has that plant fully disappeard?

And for something to "exist" does it only exist if it is separate? I often hear something is not real because it has no separate existence. Of course things don't have separate existence. Everything is embedded in an environment of things that "appear" to be separate. Does that mean those elements don't exist? Does rhythm exist? Does energy exist? Is rhythm constant?

Sorry if I go a little off topic here.

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.

 

Now.... we can explore what we call 'sensation', 'tree', etc further. Looking at a tree, there is no observer 'in here' separate and looking 'out there' at the tree... the observer is the observed and there is only just the suchness of the tree revealing itself with 0 distance, the suchness of tree is itself consciousness.

See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

yes I'll certainly be back at some point tomorrow. Right now, it's sleep time.

Hello there. I will be posting a long message very very soon in the taoist discussion forum. So if you wish, you can chat with me there. For now, hello everyone!