The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Sunya

  • Rank
    Dharma Bum!

Recent Profile Visitors

11,603 profile views
  1. I think this quote from Kyle is pretty clear on the meaning of space in Dzogchen, which like the term 'mirror is used as a symbol or metaphor, not as a literal description which would only lead to formless state.
  2. This seems more like hinayana view, rather than mahayana. In mahayana it isn't understood that the mindstream ceases completely, ever, but that may be a goal in hinayana. Certainly is not a goal in mahayana, at least based on what I've read and heard From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."
  3. How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

    TI, This is just a friendly discussion. There's no need to take things personally. Also, the quote you used does not say anything which supports what you say. You're reading too much into it based on your expectations and experiences, which is why I suggested a teacher, but of course it's your life and you don't have to listen to me. "To penetrate the light is not to realize the cause of the light." It says so in the footnotes of the pdf you linked to, since you do not believe me. Also from "To penetrate the light means to actually submerge in the light " Nowhere is this suggested in the sutta. If you disagree, please show the exact sentence where this is implied. Vipassana is the practice of penetration, and in fact this language is used quite often by vipassana teachers, such as Mahasi Sayadaw. The goal is to penetrate the object, whether that's the nimitta or any other phenomena. To try to merge with the object is jhana meditation, but this in and of itself will not lead to liberation. Anyway, see this thread where Daniel Ingram talks about this You're saying Venerable Bhikkhu Sona, abbot of the Birken Forest Monastery is a non-practitioner who is full of crap? And where is the radical interpretation? I did not say vipassana is a cause. I said " to penetrate the light (the nimitta) means to directly see, or realize the cause of, which is vipassana." Vipassana is the practice of seeing the cause, gaining knowledge of, clearly seeing, etc. phenomena. You see the light with great clarity, but that's jhana. If you see the light and penetrate it, that means you see that the light is impermanent (made up of smaller moments of light which cause the next moment of light) and lacks inherency, thus penetrating the object to see its true nature. This is vipassana. Yes, these are good books. If you're interested in vipassana, Shaila Catherine's Wisdom Wide and Deep is quite good. In both Ajan Brahm's and Shaila Catherine's books, the nimitta is used as an object to enter jhana, so if that's your goal, that's great and I do not mean to discourage you. I am only saying that the Buddha did not gain enlightenment by focusing on the nimitta and entering jhana. That's all.
  4. How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

    How are you getting all this from that passage? Nowhere does it say that the Buddha 'gradually learned how to make the light and the visions remain' This is the complete opposite of what the passage suggests. The light described is also not the light you're talking about. It's the nimitta, or sign, which precedes jhana or one pointed concentration. It is a mental phenomena correlated with the breath. If you want to learn more about nimitta, see this and this Also, you seem to be obsessing about visions and such, when the passage is clear that the Buddha realized the cause of the nimitta and visions by analyzing his experience. When it says "the knowledge and vision arose in me:" it does not mean that the knowledge and vision of forms arose. Vision in this context means seeing clearly. See this sutta: Also, to penetrate the light (the nimitta) means to directly see, or realize the cause of, which is vipassana. IMO you would really benefit from finding a teacher to guide you since you are mixing too many different ideas which are not very useful. If you are interested in jhana/vipassana meditation, a Theravada teacher can be of use. You can also contact Daniel Ingram directly for guidance on the Dharma Overground forum. He's an expert in both jhana and vipassana and is an authorizd teacher in the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage. If you're interested in Dzogchen, then it's best to find a teacher in a Dzogchen lineage. But learning from various passages and books and creating your own interpretations will only cause confusion.
  5. Thusness and His Path.

    What's with the hostility GrandmasterP? Thusness is not a guru and isn't selling anything. You're making baseless assumptions. The lingo here is standard dharma talk. If there's something you don't understand, you can simply ask. But coming in here and acting this way is pretty disrespectful
  6. Thusness and His Path.

    All Buddhist paths lead at least to realization of clarity. What makes Buddhist paths unique is the emptiness aspect (kadag)
  7. Thusness and His Path.

    That's xabirs site, and he does post stuff about Malcolm sometimes :-P
  8. Sword Art Online

    I loved this anime, season 1 much more than season 2. Really fun watch!
  9. Favourite Buddhist Books

    I recommend getting this book - A Flash of Lightning in the Dark of Night: A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life by Dalai Lama -- It's not just a translation (although the text is included) but also a commentary by one of the greatest Buddhist masters of our time.
  10. samsara

    Creation, have you read the book What the Buddha Taught? It's very good, and you can find it cheap used on Amazon. The book draws from the earliest sutras written down by direct students of the historical Shakyamuni Buddha. There is a great chapter specifically on anatta. No later teachings of Mahayana, Chan, Zen, Vajrayana, Dzogchen, etc go beyond what the historical Buddha taught. They simply build on it. All the tantras and sutras which talk about Mind, Buddha-nature, Rigpa, Clear light, Original Face, etc all assume that the reader has the basic understanding of the original early teachings. Unfortunately many people simply read the later stuff and get the wrong idea, even sincere Buddhists. Actually, I found a PDF copy of the book if you don't mind reading it on the computer: The clearest way I can try to explain it is through the analogy of the mirror. There is a mirror, and there are reflections. First, there is realization of the mirror as the mirror itself by detaching from reflections (the I AM) and experienced as a pure formless witness which is separate from all reflections. The witness is then dropped as a center and expanded to include everything. The experience is then that the mirror and reflections are nondual. The mirror and reflections are one and the same. The mirror, or pure awareness, is like the cosmic vast space-like container from which reflections (form) arise and subside, like a vast emptiness which is also a fullness. This is the substantialist nondual that Xabir talks about. Anatta is the realization that there is no mirror apart from reflections. Reflections do not arise from the mirror. Reflections are the mirror, and there is no mirror apart from reflections (no empty source, no vast space-like container, just reflections). Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. There is no form apart from emptiness, and no emptiness apart from form. So in the Bahiya Sutta when the Buddha said "In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is only the heard" that is the anatta realization (well, actually the realization of anatta is that this has always been so, but we have not noticed it). There is no awareness separate from the impermanent colors, sounds, thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc. Awareness does not exist on its own but rather through an interdependent relationship, like you cannot have awareness of vision without something to see, the eyeball functioning properly, the visual cortex processing it, etc.
  11. samsara

    He is not talking about anatta there, but yes it is a really wonderful description of the luminosity of mind.
  12. samsara

    So you're saying that people like Alex Weith have not actually experienced Nirguna Brahman or are misinterpreting the experience? On what are you basing this assumption? Read this that he wrote: "What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma). It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly."
  13. Can't wait. I love Baraka. Simply wonderful.
  14. samsara

    I am curious why you downplay the mind's ability to accurately point to and explain metaphorically the experience of nonduality? I am sure you can hear someone describe the I AM experience, which is also a non-conceptual experience, but understand that they are not describing the non-dual experience. It's not so subjective like a feeling or a taste of a particular substance. It's an experience with clearly describable markers, and the more you have the experience, the clearer your concepts represent the experience. IMO, what you are describing is intellectual laziness. There are many things in the world which cannot be spoken of and must be directly experienced to understand, like love, maturation, awe, but language certainly allows us to communicate these intangible experiences if we pay attention to what is happening. Certainly if we lose ourselves and do not pay attention, it would be impossible to then come back and accurately communicate what happened.