The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[xabir2005]

Anatta, like I said, is not neti neti. Neti neti is a form of dissociation. When one dissociates from all concepts, one discovers the simple fact of being-awareness which is the core of existence. One no longer has doubt about it.

 

Anatta is also not the aspect of impersonality (as you described: awareness is not "yours") - the different degrees of no-self is described in more details in my article http://awakeningtore...w-practice.html

 

Anatta however is a subtler truth, realizing anatta entails discovering the absence of an agent, because the rejection and seeing through of the view of a self (self as implying permanent, separate, having agenthood) is itself the seeing through of agency: one realizes that hearing is simply the sound without a hearer, in seeing just scenery without seer. Pure consciousness of hearing, pure consciousness of sight, etc... Arising dependent on conditions. No I. At this point that pure being-awareness is not confined to the mind realm, it is experienced as the eighteen dhatus itself, manifesting in diversity, and there is no making of consciousness into I, me or mine.

 

In the words of the Zen priest Alex R. Weith in his very well written article: http://awakeningtore...hiya-sutta.html

 

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

 

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

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

 

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

 

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

 

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

 

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises".

 

This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing.

 

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

 

As a matter of far, I am not familiar with noting vipassana. What I do is to hold on the 'sense of being' or 'sense of presence'.

 

This presence that first felt like "I am presence-awareness" now turns into the direct apprehension of the beingness, presence or actuality of seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. in the absence of a subject, knower, self or non-dual awareness-super-Self.

 

The sense of being (or feeling of existence) is not anymore the sense of my being as a sentient being or even as pure non-dual awareness, but is simply experienced as the beingness of 'what is' manifesting its presence.

[dwai]

Alayavijnana is the state of ignorance, and through the latent tendencies or seeds project a world of duality. It has no resemblance whatsoever to some ultimate ground of being. Alayavijnana is also not talking about nondual experience.

 

Through the arising of wisdom, alayavijnana ceases to have its designation, as all dualistic consciousness, totaling 8 consciousness (vijnana) has transformed into the five wisdoms.

 

All delusional states arising through the eight consciousness, and all wisdoms, are utterly empty of self and unestablished from top to bottom.

It is used to "deny" absolute bring by manufacturing this elaborate consciousness storage cloud

[xabir2005]

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

(By Alex R. Weith)

There is one post in 2010 that Thusness posted to me. It was very important to me and preceded my insight into anatta. It was the condition that made me investigate further to penetrate into the essence of anatta and emptiness. At that time, I was already established in non-dual luminosity and saw everything as the "expression of a single field of aliveness", everything was as if one substance of awareness undivided in any way. Yet I was still unable to realize anatta.

 

Then during bmt (basic military training), Thusness intended for me to know some important points through my dreams which manifested in a couple of dreams, after which when contemplating on the Bahiya Sutta, the realization of anatta arose.

 

Thusness said to me:

 

Hi Simpo and AEN,

 

Yet we cannot get carried away by all these blissful experiences. Blissfulness is the result of luminosity whereas liberation is due to prajna wisdom.

 

To AEN,

 

For intense luminosity in the foreground, you will not only have vivid experience of ‘brilliant aliveness’, ‘you’ must also completely disappear. It is an experience of being totally ‘transparent’ and without boundaries. These experiences are quite obvious, u will not miss it. However the body-mind will not rest in great content due to an experience of intense luminosity. Contrary it can make a practitioner more attach to a non-dual ultimate luminous state.

 

For the mind to rest, it must have an experience of ‘great dissolve’ that whatever arises perpetually self liberates. It is not about phenomena dissolving into some great void but it is the empty nature of whatever arises that self-liberates. It is the direct experience of groundlessness and non –abiding due to direct insight of the empty nature of phenomena and that includes the non-dual luminous essence.

 

Therefore In addition to bringing this ‘taste’ to the foreground, u must also ‘realize’ the difference between wrong and right view. There is also a difference in saying “Different forms of Aliveness” and “There is just breath, sound, scenery...magical display that is utterly unfindable, ungraspable and without essence- empty.”

 

In the former case, realize how the mind is manifesting a subtle tendency of attempting to ‘pin’ and locate something that inherently exists. The mind feels uneasy and needs to seek for something due to its existing paradigm. It is not simply a matter of expression for communication sake but a habit that runs deep because it lacks a ‘view’ that is able to cater for reality that is dynamic, ungraspable, non-local , center-less and interdependent.

 

After direct realization of the non-dual essence and empty nature, the mind can then have a direct glimpse of what is meant by being ‘natural’, otherwise there will always be a ‘sense of contrivance’.

 

My 2 cents and have fun with ur army life. :-)

[Informer]

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).

 

Have you ever been to Vedic City? It is about 15 miles from where I live, maybe we could go to visit over this summer sometime?

[Informer]

80

Ramana Maharshi, Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi

In reply to a question from a sannyasi, Ramana Maharshi made the following statement about samadhi:

1. Holding on to Reality is samadhi.

2. Holding on to samadhi with effort is savikalpa samadhi.

3. Merging in Reality and remaining unaware of the world is nirvikalpa samadhi.

4. Merging in ignorance and remaining unaware of the world is sleep.

5. Remaining in the primal, pure, natural state without effort is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi.

http://www.adishakti.org/forum/ramana_maharshi_sahaja_yoga_book_of_prophecies_1-10-2007.htm

Edited June 1, 2012 by Informer

[xabir2005]

I don't know why you quoted that, since nobody is talking about sleep.

[Informer]

I posted it meaning that I think you are sleeping to the rest of the phenomena of actuality. Such as this:

 

Later that evening in the Old Hall I sat at the feet of the Maharshi. He was reclining on the couch gazing westward and I sat on the floor facing him. Our eyes fixed, one upon the other, were pinned together for quite a long time. I then saw the form of the Maharshi take the shape of Ardhanareswara.

 

Ardhanareswara is one aspect of Shiva — one half is the Mother and the other half is the Father; one half of the form had a breast and the other had a trident. Around us the pundits were reciting Sanskrit verses.

 

As it went on, I began to witness certain changes in my body taking place. I saw a pair of serpents rising from the base of my spine in a crisscross, spiralling manner. They rose to the crown of my head and spread their hoods. One was red; the other blue. The whole cranium became suffused with a bright light. My attention was fixed upon the point between my eyebrows where the serpents' heads were pointed.

 

All of a sudden there was a splitting of the skull from the top front to the back. This was followed by an upward gush of a reddish flame shooting out from the top of my head. While this was flowing out, a stream of nectar issued from the single breast of the Ardhanareswara form of the Maharshi and a second stream

 

83 of nectar flowed out from the top of Arunachala. Both streams landed on my head and sealed the break in my skull.

 

When the skull was sealed I experienced a brilliant light, like that of an arc lamp, and an indescribable joy and coolness filled my being. This light and joy continued for several hours. During this time I didn't move about and I was unconscious of what was going on around me. You may have seen a light focused on to a concave mirror. Its light is reflected with a single beam onto a point. Well, sometime about midnight all the light, like a concave mirror, was focussed onto the Heart. Then all the light drained into the Heart. The Kundalini was completely sucked into the Heart and the Heart was opened — that is the seat of Arunachala Ramana.

 

The Heart is normally closed, but when it was opened — I never knew any of these things and never read any theory. These are all practical experiences — a flood of nectar gushed forth and drenched every pore of my skin, drenched my whole physical system. It poured out, went on coming out in a great flood. The whole Universe was filled with that Nectar.

 

(Sahaja Book of Prophecies, John Noyce)

http://www.adishakti.org/forum/ramana_maharshi_sahaja_yoga_book_of_prophecies_1-10-2007.htm

 

There is more then realizing emptiness to perform such feats, and it has to do with how we choose to shape Awareness in our daily lives. (imo)

 

Awareness has always been the foundation which all is built upon, so the idea is to remove the structures of delusion and re-build one of truth.(self-evident/subjective truth), that you can find within and can experience beyond thinking. Thinking comes after the fact, and only then as a pointer when attempting to convey it to another. Thoughts are after the fact, not before or during, always after the present moment.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Informer

[Simple_Jack]

I also do not think that Buddha had meant for his teaching to be divided up into sects the way it has become, so considering this only 1 out of the many interpretations is probably correct, and that one coincides with the truths from other teachings from other cultures, imo.

All of the teachings that came after Siddartha Gautama's death are basically just an expansion on the original teachings. At the 'heart' of these teachings are the 4 noble truths, 8fold noble path, the three marks of existence/3 dharma seals, and dependent origination/emptiness/the middle way.

[Simple_Jack]

It is used to "deny" absolute bring by manufacturing this elaborate consciousness storage cloud

Alayavijnana is not some sort of "thing" nor is it some absolutely existing "ground" from which phenomena springs from.

 

There is no "absolute" to deny in Buddhism, since there is no "absolute" state to achieve in Buddhism. The two truths model of Buddhism is that whatever dependently originates is empty (of an independent, concrete, absolute existence,) free from all extremes ~ The ultimate truth is none other than the relativity of dharmas. Vajrahridaya always used to say: "There is no real ultimate state, and that's the ultimate realization."

 

These subtle differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, cannot be understood from an eternalistic framework for experience. They are completely different ways of viewing existence.

[Simple_Jack]

[dwai]

Alayavijnana is not some sort of "thing" nor is it some absolutely existing "ground" from which phenomena springs from.

 

There is no "absolute" to deny in Buddhism, since there is no "absolute" state to achieve in Buddhism. The two truths model of Buddhism is that whatever dependently originates is empty (of an independent, concrete, absolute existence,) free from all extremes ~ The ultimate truth is none other than the relativity of dharmas. Vajrahridaya always used to say: "There is no real ultimate state, and that's the ultimate realization."

 

These subtle differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, cannot be understood from an eternalistic framework for experience. They are completely different ways of viewing existence.

Vajrahridaya

Why i am enlightened by just hearing that name

[xabir2005]

I posted it meaning that I think you are sleeping to the rest of the phenomena of actuality. Such as this:

 

 

 

There is more then realizing emptiness to perform such feats, and it has to do with how we choose to shape Awareness in our daily lives. (imo)

 

Awareness has always been the foundation which all is built upon, so the idea is to remove the structures of delusion and re-build one of truth.(self-evident/subjective truth), that you can find within and can experience beyond thinking. Thinking comes after the fact, and only then as a pointer when attempting to convey it to another. Thoughts are after the fact, not before or during, always after the present moment.

These energetic openings depend on one's type of practice, it may be more common for kundalini practitioners and not direct path practitioners, nonetheless that is not the main point - all these come and go, are just more transient phenomena that is result of chakras opening etc. I too had many experiences of bliss, seeing lights, amazing experiences etc, but these all come and go and are not the main point. Nonetheless each path of practice also aims to realize the essence of mind. Kundalini at the end leads to the experience of "cosmic consciousness".

 

What you are talking about is still the luminous essence, what I quoted from Thusness is to realize the empty nature of that luminous essence.

Edited June 3, 2012 by xabir2005

[Informer]

These energetic openings depend on one's type of practice, it may be more common for kundalini practitioners and not direct path practitioners, nonetheless that is not the main point - all these come and go, are just more transient phenomena that is result of chakras opening etc. I too had many experiences of bliss, seeing lights, amazing experiences etc, but these all come and go and are not the main point. Nonetheless each path of practice also aims to realize the essence of mind. Kundalini at the end leads to the experience of "cosmic consciousness".

 

What you are talking about is still the luminous essence, what I quoted from Thusness is to realize the empty nature of that luminous essence.

 

I see it like this: You start with one circle that is just space, the space is considered empty, yet it is not absolutely nothing, for there exists itself as space to encompass all phenomena. Any phenomena that is added must be added to include space. Without the space, there exist no phenomena.(Absolutely nothing)

 

We are made of more space than anything else, the position of an electron from the center of a nucleus has more space in it's consistency than anything else.

 

This space is fundamental awareness. It seems to be both internally and externally.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Can you see how Buddha's space or awareness has grown and expanded to present day?

 

It is thought by some that Buddha was an atomist before the word atomism existed.

 

Buddhist atomism is a school of atomistic Buddhist philosophy that flourished on the Indian subcontinent during two major periods[citation needed]. During the first phase, which began to develop prior to the 4th century BCE, Buddhist atomism had a very qualitative, Aristotelian-style atomic theory. This form of atomism identifies four kinds of atoms, corresponding to the standard elements. Each of these elements has a specific property, such as solidity or motion, and performs a specific function in mixtures, such as providing support or causing growth. Like the Hindus and Jains, the Buddhists were able to integrate a theory of atomism with their logical presuppositions.

 

The second phase of Buddhist atomism, which flourished in the 7th century CE, was very different from the first. Indian Buddhist philosophers, including Dharmakirti and Dignāga, considered atoms to be point-sized, durationless, and made of energy. In discussing Buddhist atomism, Stcherbatsky writes:[1]

 

... The Buddhists denied the existence of substantial matter altogether. Movement consists for them of moments, it is a staccato movement, momentary flashes of a stream of energy... "Everything is evanescent," ... says the Buddhist, because there is no stuff ... Both systems [sānkhya and later Indian Buddhism] share in common a tendency to push the analysis of Existence up to its minutest, last elements which are imagined as absolute qualities, or things possessing only one unique quality. They are called "qualities" (guna-dharma) in both systems in the sense of absolute qualities, a kind of atomic, or intra-atomic, energies of which the empirical things are composed. Both systems, therefore, agree in denying the objective reality of the categories of Substance and Quality, ... and of the relation of Inference uniting them. There is in Sānkhya philosophy no separate existence of qualities. What we call quality is but a particular manifestation of a subtle entity. To every new unit of quality corresponds a subtle quantum of matter which is called guna "quality", but represents a subtle substantive entity. The same applies to early Buddhism where all qualities are substantive ... or, more precisely, dynamic entities, although they are also called dharmas ("qualities").

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

 

There were other atomists in presupposition well:

 

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

Edited June 4, 2012 by Informer

[xabir2005]

I see it like this: You start with one circle that is just space, the space is considered empty, yet it is not absolutely nothing, for there exists itself as space to encompass all phenomena. Any phenomena that is added must be added to include space. Without the space, there exist no phenomena.(Absolutely nothing)

 

We are made of more space than anything else, the position of an electron from the center of a nucleus has more space in it's consistency than anything else.

 

This space is fundamental awareness. It seems to be both internally and externally.

Whatever you said is still describing the luminous aspect. The space you talk about is not to be equated with what I mean or buddhism meant by emptiness. In fact this awareness as space is already discovered in what I call the I AM realization. Then when one goes into one mind, one sees that not only is form "dependent" on awareness, but form and awareness, form and space are indistinguishable or inseparable without the slightest subject-object split. I believe this is where you are at.

 

But there is further insight, and that is what I call the insight into anatta and emptiness.

 

On another note, I just wrote a long post to Richard Herman from newbuddhist forum:

 

Richard: "Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark.

Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential.

Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well."

 

indeed. As Thusness mentioned in his article http://awakeningtore...experience.html

 

"At this juncture, it is necessary to have clarity on what Emptiness is not to prevent misunderstandings:

 

• Emptiness is not a substance

• Emptiness is not a substratum or background

• Emptiness is not light

• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

• Emptiness is not the Absolute

• Emptiness does not exist on its own

• Objects do not consist of emptiness

• Objects do not arise from emptiness

• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching

And I would like to add,

 

Emptiness is not a path of practice

Emptiness is not a form of fruition"

 

 

The problem with people mistaking Emptiness for some Absolute is because they had the experience, realization, of the I AM or the Witness. It is the formless beingness or what you call the subjective pole taken as true self. I'm sure you are familiar of it.

 

Because this experience is "formless", when they hear Buddhist terms like "emptiness", they automatically began to equate the formless being with buddhist emptiness.

 

Little do they know, the formless beingness or consciousness has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness teachings.

 

Dr. Greg Goode expressed well:

 

"For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free."

 

 

Dr. Greg Goode who followed the Advaita teachings of Sri Atmananda only later explored Buddhist emptiness teachings only after going through the I AM which later led to the nondual Brahman or One Mind realization. What Dr. Greg Goode failed to describe however is the direct realization of the emptiness of awareness. So I think some of the understandings remain at a theoretical level.

 

When the twofold emptiness (emptiness of self of subject, emptiness of dharmas in object) is experientially realized, there is absolutely no absolutization of some "emptiness" or ultimate reality. In fact the whole purpose of (buddhist) "emptiness" is to deconstruct any notion or ideation of an Absolute, an ontological essence, a substantial reality, an inherent existence, whether in subject or in objects.

 

And this I have written recently:

 

"Just like to add a short comment:

 

Dogen here relates nyo ("like"), to ze ("this"), evoking the familiar Zen association nyoze ("like this," "thusness"). He goes on to draw the implication that "like this" signifies not mere resemblance but the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to, represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e., it presents.

 

Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251

 

I could think of one example: people liken "Buddha-nature" to be "like the moon".

In actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says, the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can "point to" or "hint at". The symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism.

 

In fact everything is like this.

 

Scent of a flower is not scent of "a flower", the scent does not represent or approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of "a car", the car IS the wheel. The word "car" is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can be established. "Self" and aggregates are likewise.

 

Seen in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy state."

 

And to this, Thusness later wrote to me:

 

"6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness

6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe.

6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else.

6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind.

6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus.

6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath...

6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment."

 

 

Lastly, no matter how many glimpses of nondual or no mind, without going through the twofold emptying, there can hardly be effortlessness and seamlessness. This is because we have not overcome the framework, the view, of inherency.

 

That is why we have to have direct realization of right view - after that "no mind" and "maha" becomes effortless and seamless instead of intermittent peak experiences.

 

Also, even if one has experienced nonduality of subject and object, and sees everything as "expressions of awareness", one can still fall back to the one mind brahman view and experience. This is because overcoming the bond or view of subject-object duality is not the same as overcoming the view of inherency. One can still have the substance view that everything is of the same substance of ultimate mind. This substance view is what is deconstructed through emptiness - both of subject (including one mind) and objects. Instead of subsuming all phenomena to be a single substance - say all liquids are "made" of h2o, one further investigates and breaks the substance view by seeing the h2o too is just a convention or imputation on a conglomerate without any core (it is just a label imputed on two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom co-dependently arising). In the same way the difference between one mind and twofold emptiness is that in emptiness, instead of subsuming, the subject to be subsumed in, I.e. "Mind" is seen as empty and coreless, mind is no mind, but the expressions are ceaseless just like river is empty of a river-entity that can be pinned down, apart from flowing.

 

Overcoming subject-object split/duality leads to the gaplessly intimate experience of everything as if there is no you and everything is yourself. This is blissful, but not the same as the twofold emptiness, and only by overcoming the view of inherency can lead to the experience of liberation.

xabir 3:48PM

Member

So in effect, a true experiential realization of the twofold emptiness Will lead to deconstructing and transcending everything into the total exertion of the universe as this very manifestation or appearance - utterly clear, vivid, lucid yet no-thing "here" or "there" - nothing to cling to, and this moment of suchness upon its inception automatically self-liberates - thereby suchness is emancipated.

 

All views are also naturally transcended, I.e. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - Kaccayanagotta Sutta

 

Anything short of this means one has understood emptiness wrongly, or the understanding remains at the intellectual level instead of being experientially realized, and thereby the practitioner is unable to actualize it in all activities.

[Informer]

 

2. The Significance of Sunyata and Cessation

 

The Buddha always used the terms void, no rising and falling, calmness and extinction to explain the profound meaning of sunyata and cessation. The teachings of the Buddha that were described in words are generally common to worldly understandings. If one interprets the teachings superficially from the words and languages used, one will only gain worldly knowledge and not the deeper implication of the teachings. The teachings of the Buddha have their supra-mundane contexts that are beyond the worldly knowledge.

 

For example, sunyata and the state of nirvana where there is no rising nor falling, are interpreted by most people as a state of non-existence and gloom. They fail to realise that quite the opposite, sunyata is of substantial and positive significance.

 

The sutras often use the word "great void" to explain the significance of sunyata. In general, we understand the "great void" as something that contains absolutely nothing. However, from a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the "great void" implies something which does not obstruct other things, in which all matters perform their own functions. Materials are form, which by their nature, imply obstruction. The special characteristic of the "great void" is non-obstruction. The "great void" therefore, does not serve as an obstacle to them. Since the "great void" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "great void" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f6.htm

 

What is emptiness?

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate reality is knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not non-reality.

 

What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

 

In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."

 

Just as space cannot exist without matter, matter cannot exist without space.