thuscomeone

Actually it is always important... all realizations and experiences are important.

 

Also, Thusness has suggested to me to tell you to do reversing of insights... which I have informed you many days back.

Yes.

I'm still not sure if you understand. d.o. IS a concept. A concept which points to something beyond concepts. Concepts can only point.

I have done that. I went through all of them, wrote them down and made sure to point out how they all eradicate duality, bit by it.

But there is more duality to be eradicated. And I'm not sure if you're aware of it.

Yes. But what I am saying is that it is also necessary to see in real time the interconnectedness of everything... D.O. is not a concept, D.O. is a living reality, and of course it is beyond extremes, empty, unlocatable, etc, but this doesn't deny D.O. as a living reality so to speak... in the same way that seeing and hearing is a living reality to you.

d.o. is a step along the way. It's not important now. When your hand moves, not when "you" move your hand, is that emptiness is form?

Seeing is not just seeing, therefore it is seeing.

 

It is the entire universe manifesting this seeing - the whole body-mind, which means, the eyes, the trees, the space, the wind, everything!

 

You can never hope to experience D.O. if you don't realize and experience this:

 

Zazen is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” which is described by Dogen as “direct experience.”

Nope, not it. I've been through all that. It's just a pointer. This is different. Forget "maha", forget "d.o." forget all that. You can't take them here. Just look! In the whole universe, only one is manifesting itself. What is it if not you?

I think heartmind is just you as you are as a human being. Your five skandhas functioning and happening without all the dust (concepts) to obscure this simple happening. But that's just a guess.

Actually, I do experience the entirety and not just the 4th line, non-conceptually.

 

There are a few experiences involved: Maha, Disjoint and unsupported, and Anatta.

 

The aspect of dependent origination is Maha... this is a non-conceptual experience.

 

Apparently you experience Disjoint and unsupported, and Anatta, but you did not realize dependent origination or experienced Maha otherwise you wouldn't say they are conceptual. This also explains why in the earlier part of the post you insisted on impermanence and denied D.O.

 

When you experience Maha, everything is a process of everything coming together to manifest this moment without agency. Rebirth totally makes sense in this (non-conceptual) perspective.

 

You will totally understand what Dogen meant by:

Zazen is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” which is described by Dogen as “direct experience.”

 

If you read Dogen stuff, you will know that the most important thing he keeps emphasizing is Maha.

Eh, not sure you know what I mean by non-conceptual. I understand d.o. D.O. has lead me to a place where d.o. doesn't apply. It sounds like you're still stuck on certain experiences.

This isn't a certain non-conceptual experience. It's seeing what is happening now and that concepts don't fit that happening.

You have to stop conceptualizing and see how conceptualizing itself ties into rebirth.

"Emptiness is form" is talking about YOU, xabir. Seeing, smelling, hearing, moving your hands, walking. Drop the talking about certain experiences and just Look at YOURSELF. What else do you think it's pointing to? sheesh.

1st July... lets see... 23rd July and still going

Tools for what?

Living, functioning, discrimination, pointing out that which is beyond words.

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

~ Dogen

 

 

Note: 'you do not return to birth after death' is not the denial of rebirth, it is the denial of the notion that a soul reincarnate, but the assertion that rebirth is the continuity of a causal process, neither same nor different

 

Do not suppose that ash is the continuation of firewood, but do not suppose that firewood would simply annihilate suddenly either. Not finding entities but seeing dependent origination, one becomes free of extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

Xabir, you don't have to take my advice here. But if you do, you should go back and read your blog post about views, as I'm not sure you fully understand its implications yet. That is because you don't fully understand "emptiness is form." Or what emptiness is form is pointing to. You're still caught in a very subtle dualism, dividing emptiness from emptiness. I'm not talking about rebirth or any sort of thing like that. You're starting from concepts, and until you see beyond them, you will go no further.

If you want to talk Dogen, you should focus on the 4th line of the Genjokoan. The first three lines are conceptual. The fourth is beyond concepts. You're stuck at the third line.

Words do not mean anything to you.

They are tools. Nothing more.

the arising of memory is rebirth

 

The karmic tendencies, habitual tendencies manifesting is rebirth

 

How obvious rebirth is right now

No. The arising of memory is just the arising of memory. Not "the arising of memory." Remembering yesterday, thinking about today. Switching off the lamp next to the bed. Emptiness is form.

Yes. What I meant is that rebirth shld more accurately be a verb, just like awareness should more accurately be called awaring, just as wind is actually the blowing, etc.

No. Rebirth doesn't matter. Nor does non-rebirth. There is no awareness, no rebirth, no wind. There is just hearing the bird, now. Not "hearing the bird, now." "Rebirth" is dead, "awareness" is dead, "wind" is dead. Typing fingers --emptiness is form.

Minister Rikuko talked with Nansen.

Rikuko said,

"Dharma-teacher Jo said, 'Heaven and earth and I have one and the

same root; all things and I are one single body.' How wonderful this is!"

Nansen pointed at the flowers in the garden, called to Rikuko and said,

"People of our time see these flowers as in a dream."

by the way rebirth is the continuity of a causal process... Happening even now, and occuring even at death as of course the process of karma cannot stop having effect until the process of karma creating stops. Rebirth is not the passing of a static noun entity or soul.

 

As such, rebirth is also a verb: rebirthing.

No, "rebirth" is not a verb. Snapping your fingers, eating a sandwich, taking a piss -- verbs.

the realization of the twofold emptiness releases the mind from the views of "is" and "is not", and without such clinging naturally there is just an ungraspable verb - direct experiencing - the magic of empty-luminosity - emptiness is form

who is experiencing? No "experiencing." The hand moves, the eyes see. Emptiness is form.

You are committed to the view that views are to be transcended, right?

I am not commited to the view at all. I'm just attempting to point to something.

Rebirth is relative right view like dependent origination is relative right view. Since what dependently originates is realized to be empty, this ends all views. The relative truths are not clung too either as even karma is ultimately empty. But we need to recognize karma on the relative level as we need to recognize d.o.

I would say that true seeing of "emptiness is form" is what really ends all views. If you see emptiness is form as a verb, not a noun, views are finished. There is one thing that is free from views. It is not empty, relative, ultimate, karma, rebirth, no-rebirth. What is it other than you -- typing, thinking, seeing?

That's your view, and it's not even an honest one. I mean, you don't really believe what you're saying in the hearts of hearts.

Nope. It simply can't be captured in a view. It's just like the eye trying to see itself. That doesn't mean that views don't still "happen." Even in this view it can't be captured. But views can point. To that which is beyond views. That is you. Not "you."

As a matter of fact the Buddha had taught that view of rebirth is right view and the view of annihalation is wrong view.

 

...

 

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

Wait a minute. You just talked before about ending views via madhyamaka. Now you propose a view. I don't think you see it yet. "This" is a verb, not a noun (concept). All views -- rebirth, non-birth -- are just something extra. They are not the actual.

Actually on the Buddhist boards, his job is to maintain the traditional Buddhist view for the sake of education. He's different in person. Believe me, he has realization. He's just a stern academic scholar online.

Good to know. Can't say I haven't learned a lot from him myself. It's just that words can only take you so far.

Enochian wrote:

 

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy...

 

 

Namdrol: Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka".

Namdrol's an insightful guy, but if he really had realized what he was talking about in that quote, he wouldn't be so dogmatic in his views or adamant to tell people they are wrong. For example, he clings tightly to his view of rebirth and criticizes anyone who doesn't believe it. If he really knew, he wouldn't have a notion of rebirth or non-rebirth. The word is not the actuality.

Don't worry, I don't want to debate

I totally agree. But I was asking what their Logic for doing this is based on.

They say that what they postulate is different to the atman view, and I am trying to figure out that rationalization.

How is it different, and do they think they have a way that they can make something existent, without it becoming an object of fixation? The idea seems ludicrous to me, but I would like to understand their perspective properly before writing them off.

 

And In regards to Dzogchen, was Longchenpa a shentong? He does not seem to be at all from my reading of him.

 

Also some teachers say that understanding the two views is of great use, and that the truth is found between them. I would like a greater understanding of why they say this.

In peoples words if possible with out excessive Link posting.

Yes, between the two views is the place to be.

Transcending ALL views and concepts (self, no self, emptiness, form) by realizing that what you are is prior to them -- emptiness as form.

One day while Pai-chang was still Ma-tsu's student the two were out walking together and saw in the sky a formation of wild ducks. Ma-tsu asked, "What is that?" Pai-chang said, "Wild ducks." Ma-tsu said, "Where have they gone?" Pai-chang replied, "They have flown away." Ma-tsu then twisted Pai-chang's nose, of from which Pai-chang cried out in pain. Ma-tsu said, "When have they ever flown away, they have been here since the beginning."

I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything because I am not a robot. I too need rest sometimes.

We all do. And we all need a break from the computer as well.

Alright. Nice talking to you. After you get some rest we'll do it again.

Ok. Be ready

If mind is dependently arisen, there should be a condition for its cessation.

Uh-uh. Since mind is dependently arisen, it is not a real thing. But it is not a non-thing either. As I've repeated more times than I can count. The best word to use for mind is "unborn." Since it has never been born (truly existed), it can never cease.

When emptiness is talked about as having power to manifest, it is because emptiness is lack of inherent existence. Because of this lack of inherent existence, anything can happen.

Proposing a self-existent mind negates any possibility for manifestation.

But as I said to Lucky, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think this debate has gone on too long and has taken up too much of my time and energy. Thank you for the discussion

By the way, Deci Belle, thank you for the compliment