What is a phenomenon?

[goldisheavy]

Exactly. There is no 'This' only but 'When there is this, that is.'

 

 

Not even close. It's actually more like this:

 

 

When there is this, then "when there is this that follows" is true.

 

When there is that, then "when there is this that follows" is false.

 

 

Then even further contextualizing it:

 

 

When there is this, then

 

"When there is this, then 'when there is this that follows' is true.

 

When there is that, then 'when there is this that follows' is false."

 

is true.

 

When there is that, then

 

"When there is this, then 'when there is this that follows' is true.

 

When there is that, then 'when there is this that follows' is false."

 

is false.

 

AND THEN IT IS CONTEXTUALIZED EVEN FURTHER.

 

And it goes on until infinite.

 

So the "end" result is that nothing depends on anything in reality, because everything depends on everything. It's damn hard to understand why that's true, but it is.

 

DO demolishes itself when you actually see it correctly.

 

Phenomena are utterly empty because they are endlessly contextualized. There is no final context. No definitive context or last or first context. Etc.

 

So one basically cannot draw any conclusion.

 

The way YOU say it is wrong, because if one hears what you say, one thinks it is safe to assume that when there is that, then this is true and one feels safe making a conclusion.

 

When someone hears my explanation, they understand they cannot conclude anything whatsoever and actually whoever hears my explanation they don't even know if they heard it or didn't hear it. Only then they hear it well. But when someone listens to you, they come out thinking they know what you mean. So you are cultivating a false sense of certainty in a doctrine.

 

Basically you are misusing the doctrine of DO and you're making it into a poison the way you explain it.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Basically you are misusing the doctrine of DO and you're making it into a poison the way you explain it.

 

You see poison.

 

Yes, since each point in the web leads to all other points in the web upon contemplation, there is the omniscience of Buddhahood. But there is still no, "I was his parents" identification pride since the whole net is empty and your personal mind stream still has it's own infinite connectivity which means without end that is unique. It does not mean that I am you and you are me or that you were Buddhas parents in a kind of big ego I am everything type of experience. Next your going to say that you invented the boomerang. Don't let the bliss of the I AM experience fool you. You are using D.O. as a poison if that is your conclusion.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha, the physical Nirmanakaya emanation, taught anything about mind streams as we are talking about them. as far as I know, theres nothing about this in the Pali cannon. this is a Mahayana/Vajrayana development,

 

the continuation of the 5 skhandas is the perceived self, and there is nothing outside the 5 skhandas. so then once one reaches Nirvana in the Theravada sense, it is like a candle being blown out and no semblance of an individual remains. while i think in Mahayana/Vajrayana there is more talk of an individual mindstream that does exist after enlightenment, where every Buddha has the same qualities of compassion and wisdom but they remain separate. but since this mindstream exists after the illusory nature of the skhandas are revealed, then i think this implies that there is something beyond the skhandas, something like pure luminosity though it is empty and cannot be called a Self.

 

I think that the Pali suttas are more about negation because the people at the time were very much eternalist and believed in a soul separate from matter, so the physical Shakyamuni Buddha taught them to negate but this can easily lead to Nihilism so Mahayana is more about affirming that there is something positive... another goal instead of cessation, Buddha Nature

 

"Nagarjuna says that the mindstream of every unenlightened being is permeated by the heart essence of buddhahood. The fundamental nature of our mindstreams is tathagatagarbha, or buddha nature, the seed and heart essence of an enlightened being. It is this quality that gives us the capacity to become buddhas."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Edited June 20, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Not even close. It's actually more like this:

When there is this, then "when there is this that follows" is true.

 

When there is that, then "when there is this that follows" is false.

Then even further contextualizing it:

When there is this, then

 

"When there is this, then 'when there is this that follows' is true.

 

When there is that, then 'when there is this that follows' is false."

 

is true.

 

When there is that, then

 

"When there is this, then 'when there is this that follows' is true.

 

When there is that, then 'when there is this that follows' is false."

 

is false.

 

AND THEN IT IS CONTEXTUALIZED EVEN FURTHER.

 

And it goes on until infinite.

 

So the "end" result is that nothing depends on anything in reality, because everything depends on everything. It's damn hard to understand why that's true, but it is.

 

DO demolishes itself when you actually see it correctly.

 

Phenomena are utterly empty because they are endlessly contextualized. There is no final context. No definitive context or last or first context. Etc.

 

So one basically cannot draw any conclusion.

 

The way YOU say it is wrong, because if one hears what you say, one thinks it is safe to assume that when there is that, then this is true and one feels safe making a conclusion.

 

When someone hears my explanation, they understand they cannot conclude anything whatsoever and actually whoever hears my explanation they don't even know if they heard it or didn't hear it. Only then they hear it well. But when someone listens to you, they come out thinking they know what you mean. So you are cultivating a false sense of certainty in a doctrine.

 

Basically you are misusing the doctrine of DO and you're making it into a poison the way you explain it.

Of course D.O. is seamless.

 

I am merely quoting from Buddha:

 

"The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

 

"'When this is, that is.

"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

"'When this isn't, that isn't.

"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

 

 

At least, it didn't confuse his students.

I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha, the physical Nirmanakaya emanation, taught anything about mind streams as we are talking about them. as far as I know, theres nothing about this in the Pali cannon. this is a Mahayana/Vajrayana development,

 

the continuation of the 5 skhandas is the perceived self, and there is nothing outside the 5 skhandas. so then once one reaches Nirvana in the Theravada sense, it is like a candle being blown out and no semblance of an individual remains. while i think in Mahayana/Vajrayana there is more talk of an individual mindstream that does exist after enlightenment, where every Buddha has the same qualities of compassion and wisdom but they remain separate. but since this mindstream exists after the illusory nature of the skhandas are revealed, then i think this implies that there is something beyond the skhandas, something like pure luminosity though it is empty and cannot be called a Self.

 

I think that the Pali suttas are more about negation because the people at the time were very much eternalist and believed in a soul separate from matter, so the physical Shakyamuni Buddha taught them to negate but this can easily lead to Nihilism so Mahayana is more about affirming that there is something positive... another goal instead of cessation, Buddha Nature

 

"Nagarjuna says that the mindstream of every unenlightened being is permeated by the heart essence of buddhahood. The fundamental nature of our mindstreams is tathagatagarbha, or buddha nature, the seed and heart essence of an enlightened being. It is this quality that gives us the capacity to become buddhas."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

The five skandhas itself is the mindstream. What does 'stream' means? It's a process. Nothing ontological.

 

Also, we cannot separate Buddha-Nature from the five skandhas. See what I posted to forestofemptiness above in the second post on this page, the quotations.

 

So, you either see Buddha-Nature as being the potential for Buddhahood, or you see that it is the luminous and empty nature of mind that cannot be separated from the transience. Once you separate it from the transience, the five skandhas, you have in actuality reified a Self.

 

It's best to understand how Theravada understands the process of rebirth.

 

Nagasena, the Theravadin Arhat replies to the question posed by the King:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

 

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

 

Ven Buddhagosa:

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

 

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

 

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

Edited June 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

"Nagarjuna says that the mindstream of every unenlightened being is permeated by the heart essence of buddhahood. The fundamental nature of our mindstreams is tathagatagarbha, or buddha nature, the seed and heart essence of an enlightened being. It is this quality that gives us the capacity to become buddhas."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

 

Also, there are Buddhas all around us all the time that are aware of what we are going through and permeate us with their compassionate omniscience due to their vows to accumulate infinite merit during their practice pryer to extinguishing doer-ship.

 

Another point is that arguably many of the earliest Mahayana Sutras were written down at the same time that the Pali Suttas were and that the Buddha actually physically spoke these Sutras to very advanced disciples of the time. Not only that, but in the Pali Suttas, the Buddha left out the 4th Jhana which is leaving to the realm of...

 

Fourth jhana. (See, e.g., AN 4.123.)

 

(27) Peerless devas (akanittha deva) These are the five Pure Abodes (suddhavasa), which are accessible only to non-returners (anagami) and arahants. Beings who become non-returners in other planes are reborn here, where they attain arahantship.

Among its inhabitants is Brahma Sahampati, who begs the Buddha to teach Dhamma to the world (SN 6.1).

 

(26) Clear-sighted devas (sudassi deva)

(25) Beautiful devas (sudassa deva)

(24) Untroubled devas (atappa deva)

(23) Devas not Falling Away (aviha deva)

.................

 

Basically saying that this is the abode of what is known as Sambhogakaya, or pure energy realms where beings of high capacity here on Earth can go to and gain direct treachings from the Buddha himself which is where most of the Mahayana is transported from. I for one, have full and total faith in this reality as it's truly experiential!

 

 

 

Of course D.O. is seamless.

 

Ven Buddhagosa:

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

 

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

 

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

 

yeah baby!!

[Sunya]

Hari how does the subtle astral body (illusory body in Vajrayana) relate to the skhandas ?

[Vajrahridaya]

Hari how does the subtle astral body (illusory body in Vajrayana) relate to the skhandas ?

 

It's just the same except less densified with less or if enlightened, no attachment. It's it's own complicated story really. But, basically... it's just what you are now with less density based upon less attachment to perception and more identity with awareness itself, either enlightened (seeing through identity with D.O.) or not as in most Theistic or substantialist paths that reify awareness as ultimate.

 

Kunjed Gyalpo gives a good explanation of how we fall during the cosmic cycle.

 

p.s. kind of like dream realm stuff but more interpersonal, as in there is more reality to the different and unique beings that make up any given realm of subtler or denser energies.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[forestofemptiness]

Mikaelz,

 

I think that is right. The mindstream developments are usually described in terms of vijnana, actually, which would be the consciousness skandha. Being a skandha, it is subject to anicca, anatta, and dukkha. Arising in the fifth skandha, it is preceded by the prior four. Generally, what we may call craving arises first in the sensation skandha, before even a perception has arisen! This is not a theory, it can actually be experienced.

 

Notice the word: vi-, the same as in vipassana, which is to see or discriminate clearly. Vijnana is discriminating consciousness. This is a subtle clue.

 

Where people often run into trouble with Buddhism is because many people reject the 5 skandha classification as outdated or unnecessary. Yet, even when you read Zen literature, the 5 skandhas are talked about and used. There are subsequent, and yes, what one may consider a "higher" teachings. But people like to glom onto the higher teaching (or concepts!) without understanding the so-called lower teaching. This can result in little to no progress.

 

The 5 skandhas are tricky because they cannot be understood intellectually. That is why one has confusion when one does not flush them out with actual experience.

 

I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha, the physical Nirmanakaya emanation, taught anything about mind streams as we are talking about them. as far as I know, theres nothing about this in the Pali cannon. this is a Mahayana/Vajrayana development,

 

 

You see poison.

 

Vajra,

 

I find it ironic that you find GIH's assessments to be subjective, but your own to be objective (for instance, the objective nature of DO or the supriority of Buddhism over Advaita).

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I find it ironic that you find GIH's assessments to be subjective, but your own to be objective (for instance, the objective nature of DO or the supriority of Buddhism over Advaita).

 

It is objective. Because I've experienced arising out of the potential of cosmic manifestation due to memory as a first born. I know directly how deluded the Gods are in their powerful bliss.

 

Advaita no matter how you chop it, believes in an eternal essence that all things arise from and subside back into in a substantialist way at the end of a cosmic cycle.

 

When Buddhas say, things arise and subside in emptiness, they are still not qualifying emptiness and are still seeing endless and beginningless D.O.

 

The craving is merely based upon not seeing emptiness directly which is deeply non-conceptual. Which is different from seeing Brahman directly because I've experienced both. Brahman is still a subtle latching on and proliferation, an identifying which will only lead to a long lived God realm. I know this very deeply, experientially and objectively. Both through reading scripture and what the texts by Buddhas say and what Advaita Siddhas say as well as through logic, intellectual understanding of D.O. and through direct meditative experience both in sitting meditation and lucid dream states through the practice of lucid dreaming while inquiring into the secret meaning's of D.O. and how this actually applies to cosmic workings.

 

Buddhism transcends Advaita. It's a deeper comprehension of cosmos, enlightenment and what it means to transform the experience of Samsara into Nirvana. Or in Dzogchen, to spontaneously cognize the inherently empty and liberated nature of all arisings and so called non-arisings, which includes conceptual free bliss experiences in formless states of consciousness. Of which I have plenty of direct experiencing. Daily sometimes for elongated periods. Not right now, I'm actually being quite egotistical even talking about these experiences... LOL!

Edited June 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

IThe craving is merely based upon not seeing emptiness directly which is deeply non-conceptual. Which is different from seeing Brahman directly because I've experienced both.

 

 

so are similar methods used? or is there a different method for seeing emptiness directly?

[Vajrahridaya]

so are similar methods used? or is there a different method for seeing emptiness directly?

 

Ah! The crutch of the matter. The method is the same, the view is different.

 

Thus the first of the 8 fold noble path... "Right View".... the 1st!! That has real importance! Get your view correct even intellectually before you even start delving in.

[xabir2005]

The method is also different... vipashyana is peculiar to Buddhism.

[Vajrahridaya]

The method is also different... vipashyana is peculiar to Buddhism.

 

YES!! Your right... because it has EVERYTHING to do with how to understand D.O. and non-abiding-essence. (still don't think many people here know what that means)

[forestofemptiness]

[Sunya]

Edited June 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

This is what I was pointing to. no Buddhist school advocates just using samadhi right? samadhi is always used just as a base, a foundation, for vipashyana. so then are both view AND method important? its said that view is the most important, and method is secondary. so can one with Right View realize emptiness through jhana samadhi meditation? or is method also important and vipashyana is necessary as well

Both are equally important in Buddhism to give rise to insights of the twofold emptiness. Cant do without either.

[forestofemptiness]

Mikaelz,

 

I don't agree. Vajra talks about states all through his posts. Experiencing this, experiencing that--- but in the end, as you point out, it's not what you experience. It is how it you experience it. What I see in Vajra's posts are a tendency to objectify--- to take transient verbs and turn them into nouns. If I'm wrong and he's seen through his own nature, it doesn't matter.

 

There is an Advaita saying: use a thorn to remove a thorn, and throw both thorns away. Advaita, like Buddhism, starts with dualities. But if you look further in, the dualities in both systems dissolve.

 

Nevertheless, it sounds like you are well on the right track.

 

Vajra isn't talking about state. the realization or insight into the nature of phenomena is not a state but an insight. this does not come from jhana samadhi concentration but rather vipassana meditation, which is about acquiring insight. I havne't experienced myself this, but i've had some glimpses of what insight is like, and its like pure knowing coming from no apparent source, its not a state its just pure knowing.

 

For Xabir:

 

Xabir wrote:

 

But clearly, dependent origination and emptiness is the way things are, and is clearly not a method.

 

I would recheck your Greg Goode article on emptiness. It sounds like you're positing inherent existence, i.e. DO and emptiness as the way things are.

 

I like the comment by Namdrol. He brings out the "viewless" aspect of Dependent Origination. Like Namdrol, I see Dependent Origination as a viewless view that neutralizes all our misconceptions that arise out of the deeply rooted tendency of seeing things 'inherently and dualistically' and eventually gets itself dissolved in the end process.

 

(emphasis added)

 

So you see, even your teacher recognizes that DO gets dissolved in the end.

Edited June 21, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited June 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Mikaelz,

 

I don't agree. Vajra talks about states all through his posts. Experiencing this, experiencing that--- but in the end, as you point out, it's not what you experience. It is how it you experience it. What I see in Vajra's posts are a tendency to objectify--- to take transient verbs and turn them into nouns. If I'm wrong and he's seen through his own nature, it doesn't matter.

 

 

FOE,

 

You must not be reading my posts very well, from the very beginning I've been showing the transience of all levels of experience and the non-ultimacy of things and non-things.

There is an Advaita saying: use a thorn to remove a thorn, and throw both thorns away. Advaita, like Buddhism, starts with dualities. But if you look further in, the dualities in both systems dissolve.

 

Nevertheless, it sounds like you are well on the right track.

For Xabir:

 

Xabir wrote:

I would recheck your Greg Goode article on emptiness. It sounds like you're positing inherent existence, i.e. DO and emptiness as the way things are.

(emphasis added)

 

So you see, even your teacher recognizes that DO gets dissolved in the end.

 

 

No, this is wrong. D.O. does not dissolve, one just recognizes it's emptiness, but dependent origination still persists, just experienced as Nirvana. There is no ultimate dissolving in Buddhism, there is just ultimate insight and realization. If you are dissolving D.O. into a state of altered consciousness, you are objectifying emptiness as a non-dual essence, thus mis-understanding what emptiness means in Buddhism.

[Sunya]

this is awesome. such a great analogy. Buddha truly was an amazing teacher

 

--

 

You might think that because samsara is like a dream, perhaps enlightenment is solid and permanent. But Shakyamuni Buddha said that nirvana itself is like a dream -- an illusion. There is nothing that can be named which is nirvana; nothing called nirvana which is tangible.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha said this directly: "Form is emptiness". For instance, the moon is reflected in water, but there is no moon in the water; there never has been! There is no form there that can be grasped! It is empty! Then Shakyamuni Buddha went on to say: "Emptiness itself is form". Emptiness itself has appeared in the manner of form. You cannot find emptiness apart from form. You cannot separate the two. You cannot grasp them as separate entities. The moon is reflected in the water, but the water is not the moon. The moon is not the water, yet you cannot separate water and moon. Once you have understood this at the level of experience, there is no samsara. In the realm of realization there is no samsara or nirvana! When speaking of the teaching of Dzogchen, samsara and nirvana are just another dualistic concept.

 

But when looking at this moon in the water, you may say: "But it is there, I can see it!" But when you reach for it and try to touch it -- it's not there! It is the same with the thoughts that arise in Mind. So if you ask: "How has this actually come about?" you need to consider that everything comes from interdependent origination. So what is this interdependent origination? It is simply that the moon and water do not exist separately. The clear water is the primary cause, and the moon is the secondary or contributory cause. When these two causes meet, then this interdependent origination manifests. It is the coincidental appearance of the primary cause and the contributory cause.

 

 

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A...c%20Ngondro.htm

 

 

 

 

 

oh man, that quote from Dalai lama was great..

Edited June 22, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

this is awesome. such a great analogy. Buddha truly was an amazing teacher

 

oh man, that quote from Dalai lama was great..

 

The Muni is amazing!!!! Truly the teacher that influenced the entire world and every single spiritual system so much, it's really interesting to think about and realize.

 

It all comes back to Shakyamuni, the king of teachers in this world system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Also, yes... if one reads the quote from the Dalai Lama very deeply with an open mind. He really say's it all right there.

 

I contemplated that quote many years ago and it tore down my attachment to the New Ager, Vedantic view point. It was merely a beginning of seeing so, so much of what Buddhism actually teaches that is unique in a way that is super complete that only it is and no other path on the planet is with all 4 turnings of the wheel. He doesn't mention the fourth turning Dzogchen, of which is his main practice even though he is a total Rime scholar and Master. The Dalai Lama deserves way, way, way, more respect than most people give him because he doesn't appear at all to be what he truly is. He's so unassuming. Deeply pure being straight from the pure, pure abodes. I couldn't see this until I saw what Buddhism teaches. Before that, I just had a kind of well your supposed to respect him so I did. But, I couldn't really feel him. Then, on the same two weeks, I met Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama almost immediately afterwards in 2005 and just got it on a deep, deep level that would take pages to elaborate through word format. Oh Mara, builder of my house, the God of delusion, how you try to fool me in so many way's, from low to high... realization of D.O. will empty you/I.

 

Many people only think they know what D.O./emptiness means, but do not really.

 

You need transmission and real practice and study under a real master who knows what D.O./emptiness means.

 

Mahayana transcends Hinayana and Vejrayana transcends Mahayana, but Dzogchen transcends but embraces fully and completely in a way that I've never seen before Dzogchen transmission.

 

Edit: I forget that Dzogchen is both considered part of Vajrayana and an entire new turning at the same time. One must understand the 3 turnings first which Chogyal Namkhai Norbu tries to give a crash course in this through many of his books like Crystal and the Way of Light. Otherwise Dzogchen on first read of available to the West texts will seem somewhat Theistic or even Vedantic which seems to happen to a lot of Western students who just pick up a Dzogchen text or read something online without proper understanding in the intent of the teaching. Generally Semsde teachings are widely available and widely misunderstood. Explanation of Semsde or Semde.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[contrivedname!]

mickaelz, if you realized i was being sarcastic, why did you respond as though i claimed those quotes truly expressed monism?

 

all is one; all is not one yay!!!

 

before dismissing zen as being to focused on meditation forget not that Mr. Hui-Neng suggested that if behavior is "straight forward" meditation can be dispensed with.

 

anyway, the intent of my post wasnt to further a discussion on this topic which seems to be of such extreme interest to a few here, it was actually just directed at Mr. Vajra. though thanks anyway for the responses, i liked the quote from hui-neng's disciple, hadnt heard of him before.

 

suppose my point was similar to gold's; i feel that what you speak of is actually just skillful means and NOT the "true" way everything is. if folks are talking about middle paths without extremes, why state an extreme (ie buddhism is the only path to complete liberation)? there could be a very good reason, or the person saying it could just be an idiot... (yes; perhaps i just implied that Nagarjuna was an idiot, your pick ).

 

Chris

[Vajrahridaya]

i feel that what you speak of is actually just skillful means and NOT the "true" way everything is. if folks are talking about middle paths without extremes, why state an extreme (ie buddhism is the only path to complete liberation)? there could be a very good reason, or the person saying it could just be an idiot... (yes; perhaps i just implied that Nagarjuna was an idiot, your pick ).

 

Chris

 

Buddhism is the only path that is truly transcendent of externalism and nihilism. But yes, if you think Nagarjuna was an idiot then we can pretty much dismiss anything you say concerning Buddhism.

 

No matter how you chop it, Vedanta is eternalist, Theism is eternalist and Monism is eternalist. There is an attachment to an essence and identification of that is very, very subtle, which is Samsara, very, very subtle, not just gross and blatant.

 

It's not just in the words used to explain things and non-things. It's the way the words intend an experience of a subtle essence, even if non-dual.

[xabir2005]

Mikaelz,

 

I don't agree. Vajra talks about states all through his posts. Experiencing this, experiencing that--- but in the end, as you point out, it's not what you experience. It is how it you experience it. What I see in Vajra's posts are a tendency to objectify--- to take transient verbs and turn them into nouns. If I'm wrong and he's seen through his own nature, it doesn't matter.

 

There is an Advaita saying: use a thorn to remove a thorn, and throw both thorns away. Advaita, like Buddhism, starts with dualities. But if you look further in, the dualities in both systems dissolve.

 

Nevertheless, it sounds like you are well on the right track.

For Xabir:

 

Xabir wrote:

I would recheck your Greg Goode article on emptiness. It sounds like you're positing inherent existence, i.e. DO and emptiness as the way things are.

(emphasis added)

 

So you see, even your teacher recognizes that DO gets dissolved in the end.

D.O. and Emptiness as a view, as a concept, gets dissolved in the end into the direct experience of it in real time.

 

For experiential narration on the insight of D.O. and emptiness in real time, see the subsection "On Emptiness" and "On Maha" of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection" written by Thusness.

Edited June 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Today I saw some very well written posts by Daniel Ingram at the Dharma Overground forum, thought of sharing it here:

 

 

I agree with Hokai: one can get the thing pretty quiet, but stopping the thought stream entirely is the domain of supra-mundane attainments such as Fruition. Even the deepest of the experienced states has some subtle thought stream.

 

I attained to some of the strongest concentration states I ever attained using mantra in addition to visualization, so it aided rather than impeded my concentration, though past a certain point it changes to something somewhat different from the standard way we think of the verbal thought stream.

 

Beware assuming that thought=duality. Thoughts are sensations, and there are multiple modes in which sensations may be perceived: apparently dual, apparently unitive, apparently non-dual. All of these modes arise dependent on conditions, and while the content of thought is always dual, the experience may be quite the opposite.

 

I agree that there is much to be enjoyed in more quiet states, but there is much to be enjoyed in others as well, and I have at points had great fun ramping the volume of music in my head to become grand celestial choirs belting out beautiful complex harmonies such that the halls of space rang and shimmered rich overtones of pure delight the likes of which could never be heard in this ordinary realm.

 

--------------

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.