"there is such a self"

[Lucky7Strikes]

To establish a relativity, requires the mind. It is an afterthought. The established dualistic relation of 'me' and 'sound' is not the actual experience of the sound itself. It is an afterthought, which is a complete and distinct reality of its own - the after-thought of the sound is not the sound.

 

This is the Buddhist meaning of 'consciousness' - establishing a dualistic relation. But the sensation must arise first prior to the afterthought. Just bare, unfiltered experience prior to dualistic thought.

 

Right. The sound experienced as afterthought is simply a different way sound is experienced. Just as one experiences the "past" (which was the "present" when experienced at that time) as an after thought, there is no real or truer way an event is experienced. There are many instance when we can only determine an experience from the relative perspective of an afterthought, remembering dreams are like this. But again, these distinctions are all made by the subject object awareness of "I" and "experience," without reflection, no event can be said to have been perceived or experienced. Dualistic thought must return.

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche: "Know that perception involved with the duality of perceiver and perceived is consciousness. Know that awareness itself, liberated from perceiver and perceived, is primordial awareness: the dharmadatu."

 

You may think that therefore, I am asking people to get rid of all thoughts. No. The point is to see that all thoughts and sensations, including dualistic thought, are simply a present arising experience that is 'aware where it is' without a separate observer, and is arising and vanishing according to conditions.

 

Again, these are states of awareness. Awareness can be non-dual (in your definition where subject object dualism is no longer experienced or been aware of), but dualistic perspective with a localized awareness re emerges, time and space are seen again in a relative paradigm of "now" and "then" and "here" and "there" and "this" and "that" to reflect on the previously experienced state of dharmadatu. The state of selflessness. of letting go, (not perfectly pure dharmadatu) is quite blissful because there is a release of all chained conditions as there is no conscious will to grasp them. Awareness is delocalized in this state.

 

What is important is the 'insight', I am not asking people to 'get rid of self' (well, that is important to give rise to certain insights and experience like the impersonality aspect of AMness, but it does not lead to the realisation of anatta and emptiness) but see that all thoughts and sensations that imply 'self', 'awareness', 'objects', as just more manifestations and sensations that are simply present and aware where it is, and dependently originated.

The feeling of being in the brain looking outwards, in other words self-contraction, is simply an arising sensation due to various conditions. The sensation of becoming your hand, which isn't really you becoming your hand, but simply an arising experience of hand, is simply another sensation under differing condition. Sometimes hand is experienced without subject/object division, without self-contraction. Sometimes it is. Whatever the experience is, there is just those forms/experiences arising in different conditions, and just the form/experience itself is awareness.

Where awareness resides is what you are. You are clinging onto a condition of awareness where is is delocalized and prescribing that to reality. In your instance, to "see" this you must consciously investigate it (this is like the eye trying to see the eye and seeing that it can't find it, says there is no eye and just the vision), move awareness into that understanding, which is intentionally done in order to experience this mode of reality.

 

If you say that all experiences were always non-dual, this defies the very meaning of awareness which must be aware of something to know of self-awareness. You would also be saying that the senses are aware themselves, which is false because the senses happen through the construct of insentient material. A ear alone is not conscious of ear consciousness. Form cannot experience itself, it is dependent on awareness. And awareness is also dependent on form to know itself. This is dependent origination.

 

Your right that insight is different. People can have same experiences but come to different interpretations.

 

Arising sensations can happen in two instances. Spontaneous will to sense that sensation or do a certain thing by the agent and doer, or a previously made intent manifesting. The experience of being human and the sense aggregates of the body arises from a chosen will to do so in the past. You are alive as a human form because you have chosen to do so, and you are experiencing bodily senses because of this.

 

Awareness is simply all sensations present, whether it is with self-contraction or not, etc.

The presence of sensations does not does not require intent at all, with exception of things like actions, etc. All sensations is simply what is present, and not all of them require intention as a condition. If intent is present, that is simply what is present, just that alone is awareness. But intent is not necessary for the presence of other sensations apart from intents. Sure, actions require intents, but hearing, seeing, etc, do not require intent. The hearing-sound sensation of bird chirping spontaneously arise whether or not you intend to hear it. As for letting go: it does require intention to let go, but only when one is not yet realised or liberated. For someone realised he sees that there is no effort required for letting go at all, because everything is spontaneously arising and vanishing, in other words reality is constantly letting go of itself, and this is the meaning of self-liberation in Dzogchen: not that you let go of things, but that everything is simply self-liberating on its own accord.

Presence of sensation does require intent. All forms can be altered by intent. I can cut my ear off by my will and in my reality sound no longer can be experienced in the manner of "presence" but only as memories. This does not mean there is no such thing as sound, there is "soundness." I may paint a picture but not use the color green, and the reality of that painting is without green, but the potential of "green-ness" exists. Potential for creation is infinite in this way.

 

NOTHING can happen without previous will or a currently manifesting will to do so. Because existence is aware through the dependence of awareness and manifest phenomena, the interaction of the two, creation (which happens by intent), must also be continuous. Existence is eternal just as intent.

 

Your definition of effortlessly experiencing letting go is a habitual accessing of that state, like learning to experience having a hand. It's a valuable ability gained. Someone "realized" in your definition is therefore clinging to this experience as reality. There is great danger to seeing this as reality, the bliss and "freedom," and irresponsibility one feels is wonderful. One feels as if creation is just a dance dancing by itself on and one, but this is not so. The true enlightened being accesses both states of duality and non-duality appropriate to conditions at hand, and moreover alters those conditions by his ever powerful will.

 

As for the efforless experience, it's like saying that you don't have to have intentions to be a bodily form when the body is a manifestation of a previous intent or a habit. It is a creation from the past.

 

Moreover, if all reality was already non-dual, no samsara will arise, no delusion would even come about.

 

No, intention is just one type of the 5 aggregates, intention is the volition aggregate.

 

The BUddha defines volitional aggregate to the BODY's volitional aggregate. The body doesn't have a volition itself.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Right. The sound experienced as afterthought is simply a different way sound is experienced.

No, the afterthought is not the same as the sound. The afterthought is simply an afterthought, it is not the experience of the sound. The thought is another experience. The sound is awareness due to certain conditions, the thought is also awareness due to certain conditions. But the sound is not the thought.

Just as one experiences the "past" (which was the "present" when experienced at that time) as an after thought, there is no real or truer way an event is experienced.

The recollection of the past is simply an arising experience due to conditions. By itself there is nothing wrong about it.

 

However, it becomes delusional when one establish a subject and object duality based on recollection. For example, it becomes delusional when one thinks that one has an inherent and permanent self or existence that persists from the past till now till future, based on that recollection. That is subject and object duality because it presumes that there is a permanent subject experiencing those changes.

 

So, it is not the recollection that is the problem, it is the delusion that arises due to karmic propensity in relation to recollection that is the problem.

 

Experiencing dualistically is delusional. Thinking the thought 'I exist' is delusional, because even the thought 'I exist' is not a truly existing self but simply a thought that arise and vanish according to conditions, no permanent self can be found in or apart from that thought. (Of course everyone uses the words 'I' and 'you' in conventional language but it, but the difference between Buddha and sentient beings is that Buddha sees that it is just a convention but is not true in an ultimate truly existing sense) However if we see that the dualistic thought is just an arising thought that is non-dual, vivid and empty, then delusion immediately ends, or in other words they self-liberate and leave no traces. The key lies not in forcing out thinking, but in seeing that the nature of all experience, including recollection, thoughts, sounds, etc, they are simply arising on its own accord according to conditions without a separate self, thinker, perceiver, agent, self, apart from the moment to moment arising, and that those arising themselves are dependently originated and empty.

There are many instance when we can only determine an experience from the relative perspective of an afterthought, remembering dreams are like this. But again, these distinctions are all made by the subject object awareness of "I" and "experience," without reflection, no event can be said to have been perceived or experienced. Dualistic thought must return.

Recollection of a past experience is fine and even a Buddha recollects, however dualistic thinking is not necessary and causes suffering. Projecting the sense of "I" that has "experienced that" is delusional. If we see the true nature of that thought and all other sensations, they all self-liberate.

Again, these are states of awareness.

Again you don't get it. This is not a state of awareness, it is what is always already the case. Even if you think the thought "I exist" doesn't mean it truly exists, as that very thought is not self and is not experienced by a self. It is just delusion. It is just a thought arising, and a delusional one.

 

Always already, there is no thinker apart from thought, no seer apart from scenery, no hearer apart from sounds. In seeing just forms, in hearing just sounds. This is not a stage to attain but an insight to be realised. From the beginning there never was a self to begin with, so how can a self merge with sound? A 'self' is merely fabricated and delusional, how can a non-existent delusional thing merge with the actuality of a sound? There is in reality just sounds from the beginning and not a hearer.

 

The thought 'I hear' cannot hear. A conceptual hearer is just a thought and isn't a real hearer. The actuality of things is that there is just sounds, thoughts, smells, arising without a smeller/thinker/hearer. There's a vast difference between the contents of thought and the actuality of things. The thought "I hear" doesn't mean a separate self truly exists, it just means that a thought of self has arisen. It has no basis.

Awareness can be non-dual (in your definition where subject object dualism is no longer experienced or been aware of), but dualistic perspective with a localized awareness re emerges, time and space are seen again in a relative paradigm of "now" and "then" and "here" and "there" and "this" and "that" to reflect on the previously experienced state of dharmadatu. The state of selflessness. of letting go, (not perfectly pure dharmadatu) is quite blissful because there is a release of all chained conditions as there is no conscious will to grasp them. Awareness is delocalized in this state.

No. Having a temporary meditation experience of nonduality (which is not that rare) is far different from having an insight into the nature of reality as non-dual. The prior is a temporary experience, the latter, is a permanent insight, known as 'enlightenment'. And you cannot lose enlightenment after you realised the nature of reality. You cannot lose non-dual experience once you realise non-duality is not an experience but the realisation of the nature of reality.

Where awareness resides is what you are. You are clinging onto a condition of awareness where is is delocalized and prescribing that to reality. In your instance, to "see" this you must consciously investigate it (this is like the eye trying to see the eye and seeing that it can't find it, says there is no eye and just the vision), move awareness into that understanding, which is intentionally done in order to experience this mode of reality.

Awareness cannot become delocalized, it never was localized in the first place. The sense of a 'me center' arising in an unenlightened sentient being is just another sensation and thought arising without a center. Basically the sense of a 'me' is without basis and simply arises due to ignorance of the nature of reality.

If you say that all experiences were always non-dual, this defies the very meaning of awareness which must be aware of something to know of self-awareness.

But what you said is not what I mean. That is why I wrote in post #126:

 

We can talk about this in two ways:

 

All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness.

 

Or -

 

There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness.

 

 

Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine.

 

Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates.

 

 

Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience).

As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve."

 

 

P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness.

 

There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that.

Edited January 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You would also be saying that the senses are aware themselves, which is false because the senses happen through the construct of insentient material. A ear alone is not conscious of ear consciousness. Form cannot experience itself, it is dependent on awareness. And awareness is also dependent on form to know itself. This is dependent origination.

No, I am not saying sense organs themselves experience. I am saying that arising experience IS awareness, that that experience dependently originates according to conditions which does include conditions like sense organs among a list of conditions.

 

Thusness: One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

 

From another website:

Awareness is not our consciousness of the world; instead, Awareness is the phenomenal world. This seems to be counterintuitive because of the way we presume awareness operates. We see it as being like seeing, or hearing, or any of our other senses, somehow mirrored by the organs within our bodies. We take it to be a kind of sensing or percipiency. Thus some thing must be aware, sensing the world, like a brain which somehow `sees' what the eyes see and `hears' what the ears hear. It is easier to place this 'something' in the physical body - even if we cannot locate it with any assurance, explain how it works, or why it arises - than it is to say that Awareness is the existence of the world. Deriving the world from Awareness is much harder for us to contemplate. Some try to get free of the idea of consciousness being locked-up in our heads by erroneously proposing that the universe itself is aware. Others reduce awareness to some phantom-like add-on to our neurological processes. As you will discover reading through this book, Awareness is not sensing, it is doing. It is this activity of Awareness that we call "being" that gives rise to consciousness of ourselves and the phenomenal world. - James M. Corrigan

Your right that insight is different. People can have same experiences but come to different interpretations.

Insight is not just an interpretation. It is a clear realisation of what is always the case, and the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it as to lose all doubts and this requires no interpretation of any kind. Always already, just sounds, sights, thoughts, no seer, hearer, etc.

Arising sensations can happen in two instances. Spontaneous will to sense that sensation or do a certain thing by the agent and doer, or a previously made intent manifesting. The experience of being human and the sense aggregates of the body arises from a chosen will to do so in the past. You are alive as a human form because you have chosen to do so, and you are experiencing bodily senses because of this.

You did not choose to be born as a human unless you are a Bodhisattva. It will be silly to say that a person born blind or born in poverty have chose to experience that way. Rather, he is born by karma. The choice is in his creating of karma, but how the karma ripens is not his choice.

Presence of sensation does require intent.

Presence of sensation does not require intent, but it is inseparable from other conditions which does not necessarily include intent.

All forms can be altered by intent.

Not necessarily. You can't heal an amputee by imagining he has legs.

I can cut my ear off by my will and in my reality sound no longer can be experienced in the manner of "presence" but only as memories.

Yes, and the memory is another form of presence/awareness, but of a different form, due to a different condition. The thought itself is a vivid clear presence, just like the sensation of a sound, a sight, a bodily feeling etc, are a vivid clear non-dual presence, though vivid but also empty.

This does not mean there is no such thing as sound, there is "soundness."

Sound, though clearly vivid, is empty of an intrinsic or inherent soundness, just as the vision of a red flower doesn't mean there is inherent redness of flower -- just a dependently originated vivid vision. Dogs don't perceive red, due to different conditions.

I may paint a picture but not use the color green, and the reality of that painting is without green, but the potential of "green-ness" exists. Potential for creation is infinite in this way.

Potential is always there, and manifests due to the meeting of causes and conditions.

NOTHING can happen without previous will or a currently manifesting will to do so.

No. Will is just one condition out of many conditions. I talked about the 5 conditions previously. Will belongs to the mental condition, there are other conditions like karma, biological conditions, physical conditions, etc etc. There are other lists that include not only 5 but 26 conditions, though I can't remember where I read it now.

 

 

Because existence is aware through the dependence of awareness and manifest phenomena, the interaction of the two, creation (which happens by intent), must also be continuous. Existence is eternal just as intent.

Intention does not create everything. Intention is a condition for individual action. Individual action can influence collective. But all these occur only according the laws of causalities. Just because you intent to make the moon green doesn't mean it's possible.

 

In Buddhism, phenomena are empty of existence. That's why you cannot say existence is eternal. There is no inherently existing thing that is eternal. However, the mindstream flows beginninglessly and endlessly according to conditions, and this is eternal in the impermanent sense, not in a static permanent sent.

Your definition of effortlessly experiencing letting go is a habitual accessing of that state, like learning to experience having a hand. It's a valuable ability gained. Someone "realized" in your definition is therefore clinging to this experience as reality. There is great danger to seeing this as reality, the bliss and "freedom," and irresponsibility one feels is wonderful. One feels as if creation is just a dance dancing by itself on and one, but this is not so. The true enlightened being accesses both states of duality and non-duality appropriate to conditions at hand, and moreover alters those conditions by his ever powerful will.

It is not a habitual accessing of a state, but a realisation of the nature of reality as always so. Emptiness, impermanence, these are not a state of experience, this is a dharma seal, the characteristic of all experience.

 

Similarly no self or anatta is not a state of experience, it is a dharma seal.

 

You do not become impermanent, you (all sensate reality) IS impermanence by nature.

 

You do not become nondual, you (all sensate reality) is nondual by nature.

 

Same goes for emptiness, anatta.

As for the efforless experience, it's like saying that you don't have to have intentions to be a bodily form when the body is a manifestation of a previous intent or a habit. It is a creation from the past.

It's a manifestation of past karma.

Moreover, if all reality was already non-dual, no samsara will arise, no delusion would even come about.

The BUddha defines volitional aggregate to the BODY's volitional aggregate. The body doesn't have a volition itself.

No. Volition is defined by Buddha as mental, not physical or bodily.

[Lucky7Strikes]

We have both said the same things for the past few lengthy posts. More words will be fruitless. I understand the difficulty of seeing an alternative from the teachings of Thusness and other masters you have revered and learned from.

 

I do not expect for me, a random internet forum member, to prove you wrong through these arguments. I completely understand your perspectives and reasoning and paradigm of reality: phenomena arises as awareness without a doer (awareness being another factor in manifesting phenomena) from causes and conditions interdependent on each other, and even the delusional thought of dual perspective of "I" and "other" is itself a rising phenomena that is without any "being" apart from manifestation. Everything happening on its own (see, that took three to four lines ), the difference comes from my interpretation of that model and yours in accordance with concepts such as "freedom" and "enlightenment."

 

I have learned very much from you in the past, but this is where we diverge. I do not participate in these discussions to teach or convince, but to understand other's perspectives and further my own practice as I believe in my own insights foremost.

 

Let me also add that I believe one can heal an amputee's leg, even give him new legs through intent at a certain stage of abilities. And that freedom comes from the complete free will to create and navigate realities and worlds, creating causes and conditions along with it. Oh, and one can make the moon green too. .

 

I wish you the best on your path.

 

_/\_

 

Edit: Actually, let's take a final look at this example.

 

No, I am not saying sense organs themselves experience. I am saying that arising experience IS awareness, that that experience dependently originates according to conditions which does include conditions like sense organs among a list of conditions.

 

Thusness: One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

 

The arising experience of "sound" is also a conditional phenomenon that cannot be aware. Sound is just the soundwave vibrating off of the drum stick hitting the drum, and the ear that hears it is also made of insentient tissues, sound is ontologically no different i characteristic than the sense organ. So how is sound awareness?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I will add one final note on the significance of free will.

 

Without free will, I am just a rolling pile of dirt. Manifestation all happening on its own accord. My liberation/suffering does not come by "my" effort but rather causes and conditions create that effort to lead to Buddhahood or serial killerhood. Experiences just arise without a doer....

 

If this paradigm is reality, I will gladly go kill myself and suffer in hell for eternity while screaming a big giant fuck you to creation in general, oh but then, that would also be something that is simply happening. I will gladly no longer judge good from evil, for what is good when there is no one but just arising experiences? Ha! But then I can't do anything!

 

How lame, how sad...all the creative potentials just out the drain for a secondary high of "no-doership"

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edit: Actually, let's take a final look at this example.

 

No, I am not saying sense organs themselves experience. I am saying that arising experience IS awareness, that that experience dependently originates according to conditions which does include conditions like sense organs among a list of conditions.

 

Thusness: One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

 

The arising experience of "sound" is also a conditional phenomenon that cannot be aware. Sound is just the soundwave vibrating off of the drum stick hitting the drum, and the ear that hears it is also made of insentient tissues, sound is ontologically no different in characteristic than the sense organ in that soundwaves are not sentient. So how is sound awareness?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

I will add one final note on the significance of free will.

 

Without free will, I am just a rolling pile of dirt. Manifestation all happening on its own accord. My liberation/suffering does not come by "my" effort but rather causes and conditions create that effort to lead to Buddhahood or serial killerhood. Experiences just arise without a doer....

 

If this paradigm is reality, I will gladly go kill myself and suffer in hell for eternity while screaming a big giant fuck you to creation in general, oh but then, that would also be something that is simply happening. I will gladly no longer judge good from evil, for what is good when there is no one but just arising experiences? Ha! But then I can't do anything!

 

How lame, how sad...all the creative potentials just out the drain for a secondary high of "no-doership"

Just because there is no 'you' doesn't mean you cannot be compassionate for yourself and others.

 

 

From Virmalakirti Nirdesa Sutra

 

7. The Goddess

 

Thereupon, Manjusri, the crown prince, addressed the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Good sir, how should a bodhisattva regard all living beings?"

 

Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, a bodhisattva should regard all livings beings as a wise man regards the reflection of the moon in water or as magicians regard men created by magic.

 

He should regard them as being like a face in a mirror;

like the water of a mirage;

like the sound of an echo;

like a mass of clouds in the sky;

like the previous moment of a ball of foam;

like the appearance and disappearance of a bubble of water;

like the core of a plantain tree;

like a flash of lightning;

like the fifth great element;

like the seventh sense-medium;

like the appearance of matter in an immaterial realm;

like a sprout from a rotten seed;

like a tortoise-hair coat;

like the fun of games for one who wishes to die;

like the egoistic views of a stream-winner;

like a third rebirth of a once-returner;

like the descent of a nonreturner into a womb;

like the existence of desire, hatred, and folly in a saint;

like thoughts of avarice, immorality, wickedness, and hostility in a bodhisattva who has attained tolerance;

like the instincts of passions in a Tathagata;

like the perception of color in one blind from birth;

like the inhalation and exhalation of an ascetic absorbed in the meditation of cessation;

like the track of a bird in the sky;

like the erection of a eunuch;

like the pregnancy of a barren woman;

like the unproduced passions of an emanated incarnation of the Tathagata;

like dream-visions seen after waking;

like the passions of one who is free of conceptualizations;

like fire burning without fuel;

like the reincarnation of one who has attained ultimate liberation.

 

"Precisely thus, Manjusri, does a bodhisattva who realizes the ultimate selflessness consider all beings."

 

Manjusri then asked further, "Noble sir, if a bodhisattva considers all living beings in such a way, how does he generate the great love toward them?"

 

Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, when a bodhisattva considers all living beings in this way, he thinks: 'Just as I have realized the Dharma, so should I teach it to living beings.' Thereby, he generates the love that is truly a refuge for all living beings;

 

the love that is peaceful because free of grasping;

the love that is not feverish, because free of passions;

the love that accords with reality because it is equanimous in all three times;

the love that is without conflict because free of the violence of the passions;

the love that is nondual because it is involved neither with the external nor with the internal;

the love that is imperturbable because totally ultimate.

 

"Thereby he generates the love that is firm, its high resolve unbreakable, like a diamond;

the love that is pure, purified in its intrinsic nature;

the love that is even, its aspirations being equal;

the saint's love that has eliminated its enemy;

the bodhisattva's love that continuously develops living beings;

The Tathagata's love that understands reality;

the Buddha's love that causes living beings to awaken from their sleep;

the love that is spontaneous because it is fully enlightened spontaneously;

the love that is enlightenment because it is unity of experience;

the love that has no presumption because it has eliminated attachment and aversion;

the love that is great compassion because it infuses the Mahayana with radiance;

the love that is never exhausted because it acknowledges voidness and selflessness;

the love that is giving because it bestows the gift of Dharma free of the tight fist of a bad teacher;

the love that is morality because it improves immoral living beings;

the love that is tolerance because it protects both self and others;

the love that is effort because it takes responsibility for all living beings;

the love that is contemplation because it refrains from indulgence in tastes;

the love that is wisdom because it causes attainment at the proper time;

the love that is liberative technique because it shows the way everywhere;

the love that is without formality because it is pure in motivation;

the love that is without deviation because it acts from decisive motivation;

the love that is high resolve because it is without passions;

the love that is without deceit because it is not artificial;

the love that is happiness because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha.

Such, Manjusri, is the great love of a bodhisattva."

 

Manjusri: What is the great compassion of a bodhisattva?

Vimalakirti: It is the giving of all accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings.

Manjusri: What is the great joy of the bodhisattva?

Vimalakirti: It is to be joyful and without regret in giving.

Manjusri: What is the equanimity of the bodhisattva?

Vimalakirti: It is what benefits both self and others.

Manjusri: To what should one resort when terrified by fear of life?

Vimalakirti: Manjusri, a bodhisattva who is terrified by fear of life should resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha.

Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha take his stand?

Vimalakirti: He should stand in equanimity toward all living beings.

Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to stand in equanimity toward all living beings take his stand?

Vimalakirti: He should live for the liberation of all living beings.

Manjusri: What should he who wishes to liberate all living beings do?

Vimalakirti: He should liberate them from their passions.

Manjusri: How should he who wishes to eliminate passions apply himself?

Vimalakirti: He should apply himself appropriately.

Manjusri: How should he apply himself, to "apply himself appropriately"?

Vimalakirti: He should apply himself to productionlessness and to destructionlessness.

Manjusri: What is not produced? And what is not destroyed?

Vimalakirti: Evil is not produced and good is not destroyed.

Manjusri: What is the root of good and evil?

Vimalakirti: Materiality is the root of good and evil.

Manjusri: What is the root of materiality?

Vimalakirti: Desire is the root of materiality.

Manjusri: What is the root of desire and attachment?

Vimalakirti: Unreal construction is the root of desire.

Manjusri: What is the root of unreal construction?

Vimalakirti: The false concept is its root.

Manjusri: What is the root of the false concept?

Vimalakirti: Baselessness.

Manjusri: What it the root of baselessness?

Vimalakirti: Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless.

[Lucky7Strikes]

We both agree that there is no established self or an inherent self. So the quote from the sutra applies to both our paradigms.

 

Just because there is no 'you' doesn't mean you cannot be compassionate for yourself and others.

 

Anyways, what I wrote about free will has nothing to do with compassion.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

We both agree that there is no established self or an inherent self. So the quote from the sutra applies to both our paradigms.

Lucky, maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you need to see that there is no doer apart from doing. No hearer apart from hearing, seer apart from seeing, etc. No separation can be made between hearer and hearing. That is a very liberating thing to discover because we usually divide the hearer from the hearing and we believe that there is a hearer who stands apart from/outside of the hearing and controls the hearing. Thus we get into all sorts of frustrations based on this fundamental error. When you see this, since the hearer is no longer an agent outside the hearing which controls the hearing, since it IS the very hearing itself, all attempts to manipulate and control experience just fade away. There is no longer anything OUTSIDE the hearing which could exert control or manipulate. Then there is just what is. I personally feel this is liberating. How much do we suffer because of our constant attempts to manipulate and control?

 

There is a good quote by Jiddu Krishnamurti on this

 

"Are not the thinker and his thought an inseparable phenomenon? Why do we separate the thought from the thinker? Is it not one of the cunning tricks of the mind so that the thinker can change his garb according to circumstances, yet remain the same? Outwardly there is the appearance of change but inwardly the thinker continues to be as he is. The craving for continuity, for permanency, creates this division between the thinker and his thoughts. When the thinker and his thought become inseparable then only is duality transcended. Only then is there the true religious experience. Only when the thinker ceases is there Reality. This inseparable unity of the thinker and his thought is to be experienced but not to be speculated upon. This experience is liberation; in it there is inexpressible joy."

 

- Authentic Report of Sixteen Talks given in 1945 & 1946 ...p.14.

 

There is a good video on control and freedom by Ajahn Brahm that I just watched the other day

 

One more thing, I've found that you shouldn't make effort to block out the thoughts of a "doer apart from doing." Just recognize that they are more arising thoughts without a controller apart from them. This helped me because, if these thoughts give you comfort, you don't need to shun them and you can just let them remain free and unmanipulated. There is a passage from thusness' blog that I have always liked.

 

"Good sons, all hindrances are none other than ultimate enlightenment. Whether you attain mindfulness or lose mindfulness, there is no non-liberation. Establishing the Dharma and refuting the Dharma are both called nirvana; wisdom and folly are equally prajna; the method that is perfected by bodhisattvas and false teachers is the same bodhi; ignorance and suchness are not different realms; morality, concentration and wisdom, as well as desire, hatred and ignorance are all divine practices; sentient beings and lands share the same dharma nature; hell and heaven are both the Pure Land; those having Buddha-nature and those not having it equally accomplish the Buddha's enlightenment. All defilements are ultimately liberation. The reality-realms's ocean-like wisdom completely illumines all marks to be just like empty space. This is called 'the Tathāgata's accordance with the nature of enlightenment.' "

 

~ The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment

Edited January 11, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

Dwai isn't Buddhist, he's into Vedanta, and I think it's extremely ignorant to not want to learn Sanskrit terms for the sake of communication, a very American attitude (and I'm American). Especially since this is a spiritual forum not the Opera book club, and not just a Taoist forum as you keep barfing. Not everything has to be translated for you, especially on a topic dedicated to a Buddhist sutra, so why not do some simple homework? It's not difficult to google. There's nothing special or untranslated about any of the words here. In fact there is a whole wikipedia article dedicated to 'anatta'

 

I see you still enjoy being abrasive.

 

I thas always been my understanding that if a teacher wishes his/her students to learn the teacher will speak in a form that the students will understand.

 

So, this being considered, if you speak to me with words and concepts I do not understand then all you are interested in is playing with your own dogmatic beliefs and not really trying to help anyone understand why you believe what you believe.

 

So I think it is ignorant for people to speak in tongues and pretend that they are enlightened.

 

And you just won't get over the fact that this forum is titled "TheTaoBums". That's your problem. I have, on numerous occasions stated that I understand the link between Buddhism and Religious Taoism and I have no problem with that.

 

I have a very dear Vietnamese friend who is Buddhist and we have never had a disagreement because we both speak in a manner that the other can understand.

 

So while this is not specifically a Buddhist thread I will pop in now and then and present my opinions and if you can't handle it then I suggest that you do a little soul searching.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Dwai's perspective is of Advaita and not Buddhism which is fundamentally different in paradigm.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Edited January 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

 

I was at work and had no time to explain. I was trying to point out that encompassing our awareness from self to interdependence can give rise to a more compassionate way of life. When compassion arise, there is no desire to create more suffering for oneself, rather there is natural inclination and action to stop one's suffering, and that of countless sentient beings. However, we do not give rise to conceptual notion of a 'me' who is saving 'someone'. Action arises spontaneously in relation to circumstances, but in it there is no actor and no one saved. For example we hear of cases people who jump into a pool or walk into a burning house fearlessly to save the people and everything gets done spontaneously without a sense of 'me', without a sense of 'having to reach a certain goal', there is just immediate response according to the situation arising spontaneously and freely. The response to situation isn't done by a 'self', it's more like the whole universe is acting, all conditions at the moment acting out the whole thing. ... In reality, all actions arise spontaneously without a doer, and when seen, it is very freeing.

 

There is no sense of 'me' suffering due to a conceptual 'someone' or 'something', i.e. no more sense of duality, no sense of a separate self at the center of life who can suffer due to an 'external circumstance' or object. But there is compassion for suffering sentient beings.

 

Hi Xabir,

 

I just wanted to note that I like that a lot because it is an excellent explanation of 'wu wei'.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

BTW, I can also relate to the example of wu wei and explain how wu wei, which is without self, doer, but spontaneous action not separated with the entire universe, commonly mistaken as 'deterministic' and a state of 'bondage' is in fact true freedom since there is no more conceptual boundary dividing subject and object, dividing the doer and the action, observer and observed.

 

When it is seen there is no 'me' in contrast with 'universe', the universe cannot 'determine' me (since a conceptual me separated from universe does not exist). Rather, there is just Universe, arising as this One Action, One Seamless Experience. Rather than being controlled by something else, we enter a state where compassion acts freely for the betterment of self and others. In contrast, the state of being bonded by being a separate self is suffering.

 

In Thusness's words, one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous.

Edited January 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[C T]

everything gets done spontaneously without a sense of 'me', without a sense of 'having to reach a certain goal', there is just immediate response according to the situation arising spontaneously and freely. The response to situation isn't done by a 'self', it's more like the whole universe is acting, all conditions at the moment acting out the whole thing. The difference between this and Bodhisattvas is that for Bodhisattvas, it is actually an insight into reality and not just a stage of experience. In reality, all actions arise spontaneously without a doer, and when seen, it is very freeing.

 

There is no sense of 'me' suffering due to a conceptual 'someone' or 'something', i.e. no more sense of duality, no sense of a separate self at the center of life who can suffer due to an 'external circumstance' or object. But there is compassion for suffering sentient beings.

 

This would indicate the cessation of further karmic imprints too, would it not? My understanding is that if one is still clinging to even the subtlest notions of a 'doer', this will still continue to give rise to karmic impulses. When actions are performed without "self consideration" there is no longer karmic propensities in those actions. But most of us will tend to reflect back on our past actions, and it is this reflecting upon the past that gives rise to the notions of a "self" who performed good/bad deeds, causing a stir of the karmic winds again. But Boddhisattvas perform actions that has no past, present or future causes/effects since they have transcended all dualistic notions of self, space and time. So for example, when a Boddhisattva saves a drowning child, and after doing so, can just carry on as though that act was no different than say lifting a child thats just fallen off a bike, or spontaneously giving up a seat for an elderly person. This i believe is the essence of equanimity.

[Marblehead]

BTW, I can also relate to the example of wu wei and explain how wu wei, which is without self, doer, but spontaneous action not separated with the entire universe, commonly mistaken as 'deterministic' and a state of 'bondage' is in fact true freedom since there is no more conceptual boundary dividing subject and object, dividing the doer and the action, observer and observed.

 

When it is seen there is no 'me' in contrast with 'universe', the universe cannot 'determine' me (since a conceptual me separated from universe does not exist). Rather, there is just Universe, arising as this One Action, One Seamless Experience. Rather than being controlled by something else, we enter a state where compassion acts freely for the betterment of self and others. In contrast, the state of being bonded by being a separate self is suffering.

 

In Thusness's words, one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous.

 

Exactly! You know, it is sad when we discuss these concepts that there appears to be such great differences between Buddhist and Taoist philosophy because there really aren't any differences here. "Wu wei' is the free will of the universe. And in many cases any re-action/action has its base in compassion, remembering that Compassion is one of the 'Three Treasures'.

 

Yes, in the state of 'wu wei' there is no 'me' - there is only Oneness. (No, I'm not there yet. Hehehe.) And I agree also that being in bondage of anything that is contrary to one's inner essence is not freedom, whether it is religious dogma or other people in our life or any other limiting factors. Our state of mind and ability of acceptance of those thing we cannot change are some of these limiting factors as well.

 

Yeah, I always enjoy reading Thusness's posts. No, I don't always agree but I do enjoy the insight none-the-less.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Marblehead

[xabir2005]

This would indicate the cessation of further karmic imprints too, would it not? My understanding is that if one is still clinging to even the subtlest notions of a 'doer', this will still continue to give rise to karmic impulses. When actions are performed without "self consideration" there is no longer karmic propensities in those actions. But most of us will tend to reflect back on our past actions, and it is this reflecting upon the past that gives rise to the notions of a "self" who performed good/bad deeds, causing a stir of the karmic winds again. But Boddhisattvas perform actions that has no past, present or future causes/effects since they have transcended all dualistic notions of self, space and time. So for example, when a Boddhisattva saves a drowning child, and after doing so, can just carry on as though that act was no different than say lifting a child thats just fallen off a bike, or spontaneously giving up a seat for an elderly person. This i believe is the essence of equanimity.

Good points.. If there is no duality, no self, nothing inherent, only dependent origination spontaneously manifesting and dissolving, everything self-liberates upon its appearance. The point is 'self-liberation'. A bodhisattva who realises this acts leaving no traces.

 

There's a passage I believe is relevant, by Guru Padmasambhava:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...eeing-with.html

 

If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.

But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit

will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.

But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,

the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,

just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.

In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.

Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.

This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,

and, this being so; you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.

Profoundly sealed!

Edited January 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

The point is 'self-liberation'. A bodhisattva acts leaving no traces.

 

Now how Taoist is that? Wonderful! "Self-liberation!"

 

A Sage acts leaving no trace. (That is said of the ideal ruler as well. The ruler acts and the people believe they have done everything by themselves.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Double..

 

This would indicate the cessation of further karmic imprints too, would it not? My understanding is that if one is still clinging to even the subtlest notions of a 'doer', this will still continue to give rise to karmic impulses. When actions are performed without "self consideration" there is no longer karmic propensities in those actions. But most of us will tend to reflect back on our past actions, and it is this reflecting upon the past that gives rise to the notions of a "self" who performed good/bad deeds, causing a stir of the karmic winds again. But Boddhisattvas perform actions that has no past, present or future causes/effects since they have transcended all dualistic notions of self, space and time. So for example, when a Boddhisattva saves a drowning child, and after doing so, can just carry on as though that act was no different than say lifting a child thats just fallen off a bike, or spontaneously giving up a seat for an elderly person. This i believe is the essence of equanimity.

 

Yes, I agree that this is a valid path of non action. Past karmic imprints are simply played out with no more karmic, good or bad, conditions created to bind the seeker. But there is the path of action in which the karmic tendencies are rooted out by willful insight or if you are drew, um, sitting in full lotus .

 

A Bodhisattva may save a drowning child, feel proud but simultaneously sees into that pride and it is let go without a doubt or seen directly as false and unfounded. Hence it is not abiding pride (so we can't really call it pride).

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

 

A Bodhisattva may save a drowning child, feel proud but simultaneously sees into that pride and it is let go without a doubt or seen directly as false and unfounded. Hence it is not abiding pride (so we can't really call it pride).

This is only a budding Boddhisattva L7 ! One who is fully liberated will no longer be bound by even the subtlest hints of the 3 poisons. To such a one, saving a drowning child would be no different from say getting dressed in the morning, or sneezing for that matter !

 

You need to play more poker i think! hehehe...

 

I understand your emphasis though. What i described above is realization without any more taints or remains. The highest ideal, but not unattainable, though the paradox is its not attainable either!

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is only a budding Boddhisattva L7 ! One who is fully liberated will no longer be bound by even the subtlest hints of the 3 poisons. To such a one, saving a drowning child would be no different from say getting dressed in the morning, or sneezing for that matter !

 

You need to play more poker i think! hehehe...

 

 

I disagree, not being able to experience the 3 poisons is being bound to the inability to experience them. One can feel greed, hatred, see through deluded eyes all with the rightview that these are baseless. Freedom at the beginning is freedom from being bound, but perfected freedom is to be bound and not be bound hence it is truly being unbound. Like a actor who takes on various parts (but there would be no real actor anyways) but is fully aware that the act isn't real. Yes, but I guess the sneezing and child saving example makes sense in this case also.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

I disagree, not being able to experience the 3 poisons is being bound to the inability to experience them. One can feel greed, hatred, see through deluded eyes all with the rightview that these are baseless. Like a actor who takes on various parts (but there would be no real actor anyways) but is fully aware that the act isn't real.

No wish to debate with you sir. Different tools for different schools, i guess!

[3bob]

"...But Boddhisattvas perform actions that has no past, present or future causes/effects since they have transcended all dualistic notions of self, space and time..." CowTao

 

Hello CowTao,

I agree that the liberation has/is synchronized/transcended beyond dualistic aspects as related to realms of time and space, yet in my case or further interpretation along these lines which will likely not be in-line with various other Buddhist interpretations, I'll continue by borrowing the drawing of with the Tibetan Wheel of Life, which to me shows Buddha nature as being free from or outside the effects of the wheel - while also showing it working inside of it for freedom from the effects of being overshadowed or attached to somewhere within said wheel; thus if Buddha nature is also working within a wheel that has certain limitations - via and through those certain limitations then there are also certain effects of dharmas in all of time and all of space for all Beings, yet ultimately at the same moment the same Buddha nature is also or already free.

 

[xabir2005]

If sound, the stick, the drum, the ear, the physical brain, and body are all insentient by themselves, where is your mindstream? How does it arise?

Consciousness in Buddhism is treated as a separate element from the other insentient elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They are known as the five elements. Hence, the question of how sentience arise from insentience does not occur in Buddhism. The body cannot produce consciousness, for birth take place, the body must accomodate with the rebirth-consciousness to take birth, before life can form. This rebirth consciousness is not a production of the body, otherwise rebirth cannot take place, out of body experiences cannot occur (and they do occur). So what's the link between body and consciousness? There is a link, it is a mutual dependence as long as the link is established between consciousness and body through the chakras but it is not the same as consciousness having its source from the body. Consciousness has no such origin, though it interdependently originates. Whatever experienced, that is consciousness, consciousness is non-dual, but also it doesn't mean consciousness is a universal substratum (like Advaita) but rather in Buddhist view is an individual transient mindstream of consciousness.

 

Awareness is simply all manifesting experience/phenomena itself, yet is non-arising. Sometimes I use the word 'arising' but I don't literally mean something arising in time, persisting, and subsiding, what I mean is just non-substantial dependently originated ungraspable vivid appearance. Beware of thinking that mindstream arise from some source, that it comes into being at certain time. That is an extreme. To arise is to establish that it has an existence, to say it cease is to establish it's non-existence. Both are extremes (the other two extremes are both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence). These four extremes are the false views negated by the Buddhist teachings of Emptiness. But be careful of talking Awareness as Unborn, it is not the case that there is an Unborn essence underlying all phenomena popping in and out of this background unborn reality (Advaita).

 

Actually all things are already non-arising. They just manifest, appear, they do not truly arise. Because they do not truly arise, there is no coming from, and going to. It is just an appearance, a vividly clear yet empty presence, but there is no objectivity to it that can come and go as if we are an experiencer of things coming and going from our field of experience (dualistic). Whatever appears dependently originates and have no essence, just like the red-ness of flower though vividly appearing is no where to be found objectively or subjectively (for example, dogs don't perceive red), you cannot say that the red-ness has arisen or come from somewhere because it never truly existed to begin with, just an appearance. This dualistic and inherent framework of seeing things is false. In reality everything is Unborn. To say that Awareness, or Manifestation (which is the same) has a source or origin, is to stray into extremes. It establishes it's birth and having 'come from somewhere'. As explained, there are conditions, but there are no source and origin. There is no birth. There is no coming and going. In D.O., there is no movement. There is also no something transforming to something. See Heart Sutra.

 

Even though all phenomena which is awareness is non-arising, awareness is clearly vivid and displaying as all the various forms.

 

The sound of bird chirping which is a vivid presence itself does not come from somewhere, but is a dependently originated appearance.

 

Padmasambhava:

 

"13.

 

This self-originated Clear Light, which from the very beginning was in no way produced by something antecedent to it,

is the child of awareness, and yet it is itself without any parents--amazing!

This self-originated primordial awareness has not been created by anything--amazing!

It does not experience birth nor does there exist a cause for its death--amazing!

Although it is evidently visible, yet there is no one there who sees it--amazing!

Although it has wandered throughout Samsara, it has come to no harm--amazing!

Even though it has seen Buddhahood itself, it has not come to any benefit from this--amazing!

Even though it exists in everyone everywhere, yet it has gone unrecognized--amazing!

Nonetheless you hope to attain some other fruit than this elsewhere--amazing!

Even though it exists within yourself (and nowhere else), yet you seek for it elsewhere--amazing!

 

Longchen Rabjam:

 

"Phenomenal existences are unborn, of equal nature;

In which the originally liberated appearances and mind prevail evenly without apprehensions;

Concerning that marvelous sovereign, Naturally Liberated Mind,

Listen while I tell you what I have realized.

 

"All phenomena are primordially pure and enlightened, so it is unborn and unceasing, inconceivable and inexpressable.

In the ultimate sphere purity and impurity are naturally pure and

Phenomena are the great equal perfection, free from conception.

 

"There is no separate emptiness apart from apparent phenomena.

The notion of their distinctness is a division made by the mind.

 

"In the mind which has no essence, various things

Arise because of the objective conditions,

Like reflections appearing in a mirror or in the ocean.

The emptiness essence, unceasing nature, and

Variously appearing characteristic, the magical display, is

The dual projection of samsara and nirvana within a single Mind.

 

"The primordially empty Mind, which has no root,

Is not defiled by the phenomenal appearances of samsara and nirvana.

 

"The nature of samsara is the essence of the mind,

Which is primordially unborn and enlightened,

So by seeing the Mind, realization of the nature of existence is attained.

 

"For the Buddhahood which is totally and naturally pure,

Do not search anywhere but in your own mind.

 

"For people who want enlightenment, the meaning of the unmodified absolute

Is to let the mind be at ease without effort."

 

( http://www.openbuddha.com/2005/01/06/natur...eat-perfection/ )

Edited January 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[C T]

"...But Boddhisattvas perform actions that has no past, present or future causes/effects since they have transcended all dualistic notions of self, space and time..." CowTao

 

Hello CowTao,

I agree that the liberation has/is synchronized/transcended beyond dualistic aspects as related to realms of time and space, yet in my case or further interpretation along these lines which will likely not be in-line with various other Buddhist interpretations, I'll continue by borrowing the drawing of with the Tibetan Wheel of Life, which to me shows Buddha nature as being free from or outside the effects of the wheel - while also showing it working inside of it for freedom from the effects of being overshadowed or attached to somewhere within said wheel; thus if Buddha nature is also working within a wheel that has certain limitations - via and through those certain limitations then there are also certain effects of dharmas in all of time and all of space for all Beings, yet ultimately at the same moment the same Buddha nature is also or already free.

 

Hey there 3Bob! It is my understanding that "Buddha nature" refers to the seed of enlightenment that is inherent in all sentient beings, meaning that all beings in all the realms, have the potential to attain Buddhahood. This is a very cool concept, because as one's observations become more profound thru practice, we can actually discern how true this is in everyday life. Even animals display this nature, and they do so effortlessly. It is us humans who tend to over-analyze things and hence lose sight of it very often thru having missed the first truth of the Eightfold Path. For some reason, we call this "intelligence"!! In a sense you are right then - this intrinsic potential can not be altered by anything, nor is it bound somewhere - its always and freely accessible, no matter what part of the wheel one is in.

 

One of the purpose of the wheel is to show the principle of cause and effect. This law is applicable to everything that is inside the wheel, regardless. Perhaps this is the *limitation* you referred to above. Even enlightened beings within the wheel of life are subject to this law. While they are in this physical realm, they are still prone to old age and death, which is simply the law in operation. For example, Jesus, Son of God, while in the body, had to comply with this principle. So too, did Gotama, and countless other enlightened beings.

 

Moreover, those who are not of the physical realms are also subject to it - for without this wheel, those that are caught in the upper or lower realms will not have any opportunity whatsoever to attain Nirvana, which is the total extinction of the idea of being, or ultimate release from bondage to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

 

According to some teachings, the Noble Ones who realize ultimate cessation of this bondage have a choice whether to remain within or to leave this wheel of life. Those that leave for good are said to have entered parinirvana, like the historical Buddha, but those that choose to return, or remain inside the wheel are then called Boddhisattvas, selfless beings who can act skillfully for the benefit of all other sentient beings. This is their one and only altruistic intention for generating ultimate Boddhicitta.

 

I did not see anything you said to be out of line with my limited understanding of Buddhism.

 

All the best!

Edited January 11, 2010 by CowTao