More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[Marblehead]

BTW, I have four tissue boxes in the house. Two of them are open and in one of each of the two bathrooms while the other two are in storage. I have never tried to define the tissue box, I only use the tissues that are inside. And you know what? Each box is always exactly where it is supposed to be at any given point in time even though one of them might be empty and another full and unopened.

 

The box exists. Why try defining it as long as it is serving its intended purpose?

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

The gap between thoughts is simply experiencing another experience that is without thoughts. There is nothing special about it at all. You think, then you taste, then think again. There the tasting was the gap. If you are then going to say, "no, simple pure consciousness between the aggregates, form, thoughts, etc," then it is formless consciousness as it is. And then we have another experience after that, yes? So what's so special about it?

Here's another way Thusness talks about this many years ago:

When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

 

 

This also explains why I told Dwai 'a consciousness' and not 'THE consciousness'.

Edited August 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Marblehead]

 

If things do not exist truly or inherently, ...

 

Very nice post. Thanks for not making this a pissing contest but rather an attempt toward understanding.

 

I have absolutely no problem with the post.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

The 8 jhanas are not required for cessation.

 

Sotapannas, sakadagamis (stream enterers and once returners) have experienced the fruition, the blip out of reality, the momentary cessation, that marks their entry into the level of stream entry and once returning. They do not have to cultivate 8 jhanas. For example you can attain 0 jhanas and yet still gain stream entry and have a glimpse of Nirvana.

 

It is particularly the experience of Nirodha Samapatti, only attainable by Anagami (non returner) and above, that requires passing through the formless jhanas. However passing through the formless jhanas does not mean you can attain to Nirodha Samapatti: you have to become enlightened to a high degree, that of an Anagami, before you can attain to Nirodha Samapatti. Non aryas and aryas before Anagami will not be able to attain to this state even if they can pass through the 8 jhanas.

 

Also: theoretically, if you are an Arhant who does not cultivate jhanas (this is possible) and does not experience Nirodha Samapatti, nevertheless when you pass away physically, you will still enter into Parinirvana - hence that particular experience of Nirodha Samapatti is not 'necessary' but it is a high form of attainment. The reason I said 'theoretically' is because although the standard texts say you need to pass through the 8 jhanas to reach Nirodha Samapatti, Daniel M. Ingram says "It is said that Nirodha can only be attained by anagamis and arahats (those of 3rd and 4th path) who have some mastery of the formless realms. However, as Bill Hamilton once said, if you are an anagami or arahat, you are bound to run into Nirodha Samapatti eventually."

 

A short note here: you do not have to cultivate jhanas to attain enlightenment. Cultivating (samatha) jhanas simply serve as a strong concentration foundation for insight practice but in itself is not required. Jhanas by itself does not lead to enlightenment.

 

How is Nirodha Samapatti attained?

 

Daniel M. Ingram speaks from experience:

 

...One attains Nirodha by fusing insight practices and concentration practices in a fairly gentle way that is much less focused and precise than one would do if one wanted to attain Fruition. I find it easiest to attain when reclining, but the first time I attained it I was sitting. There is nothing that can really be said about this attainment, except for mentioning things about the entrance, exit, and the consequences of the attainment. One rises through the samatha jhanas in a very low-key fashion with some weak awareness of their true nature (the Three Characteristics), enters the eighth jhana (neither perception nor yet non-perception), and then emerges from that state. Sometime shortly thereafter, and without warning or very recent premeditation, one may suddenly enter the cessation of perception and feeling. It must be noted that previous interest in attaining this during the preceding days or weeks tends to increase the chances of this attainment showing up. As one gets better at attaining this, one can slip in the inclination (resolution) to attain it after emerging from the 8th jhana and then forget about it before dropping in...

 

...The texts rightly say that, on the entrance to Nirodha, verbal formations cease first, then bodily sensations, then the whole of mental functioning ceases when the attainment is finally entered. This is traditionally explained as correlating to the first jhana, fourth jhana and then the entrance into Nirodha respectively. However, it may be noticed that in the three moments before cessation of perception sets in (during the complete power failure-like entrance) the verbal formations, bodily formations and mental formations cease in that order also in three consecutive and definable moments, with the whole thing taking about 1/3 of a second. Thus, the texts may have a double meaning, or were misinterpreted by scholars who had not ever attained Nirodha Samapatti. I say this because it is still possible for many bodily and verbal (mental) formations to arise between the eighth jhana the entrance to Nirodha, and thus the traditional interpretation does not quite hold up...

 

~ http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/2CECD5EA-6058-4428-8DDD-002856C2E28A.html

The process of cessation is interdependent, but when all is ceased, there is no connections left.

 

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of concoctions.

From the cessation of concoctions comes the cessation of consciousness.

From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of mind & body.

From the cessation of mind & body comes the cessation of the six sense bases.

From the cessation of the six sense bases comes the cessation of contact.

From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of vedana.

From the cessation of vedana comes the cessation of craving.

From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging.

From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming.

From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.

From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of Dukkha."

 

~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

The process of cessation is interdependent, but the state of cessation is not conditioned - I'll give you a simple analogy.

 

A fire is burning on the candle. How do you make the fire stop burning? Does it just happen by itself without conditions? No, you have to do something. You blow it hard. Or you can remove the oil of an oil lamp.

 

Now the fire stops burning. It simply ceased. Is there anything left that is conditioned by anything? No, cessation means cessation, the fire is no longer here, there is no more fire to be conditioned by the 'fuel' to continue burning, or rather there is no more fuel to condition the birth of the fire (if it is an oil lamp). In other words, this is a state unconditioned by the afflictions for continued birth.

 

Going back to the question of Nirodha Samapatti - yes, there is a process of entering Nirodha Samapatti, yet when you enter Nirodha Sampatti, it is a state that is totally ceased and you cannot say that there is any conditions (there is no conditioned arising phenomena) in that state. You cannot say there is a connection in the state of Nirodha Samapatti nor Parinirvana - because what is there to be connected to what? There is literally nothing there in cessation.

This is a description about the non-dual, no subject-object nature of reality, but it is not talking about (and not contradictory to) Nirvana/the state of cessation.

 

Xabir,

Thanks for sharing your very well studied interpretation/information. But much of it I have not studied or know of... To put things in simple terms, I do not believe there can ever be total cessation

per-se, for then even Buddha nature would cease; although there can be total cessation of suffering, and cessation of any returning to suffering. Thus what connection remains as you've apparently said it doesn't - I'd say the connection to or with Buddha nature in all, which does not perish.

 

Om

Edited August 1, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

If you read my post again, its purpose was to show you that no phenomena such as "tissue" box can be established. That in fact when I form a mental image of it, it will not be the tissue box, but its mental image and that when I see a tissue box, it will be a vision and not the box, that if I touch it, it will be the sensation of cardboard and not tissue box, and so on. In fact, no tissue box can be found.

 

I got what you wanted to convey perfectly. You didn't understand what I was suggesting...a phenomenon can be with both label and form or only label or only form. Even your mental image is a phenomenon, as is your dreams, your day dreams etc.

 

Likewise, when we return to what you said about phenomena being able to be describe, there is no such phenomena to be described at all. The description itself is already the non-dual phenomena. What you are not understanding is that there is no solidified "it" to begin with, everything is fleeting without boundary nor definition. There is only conventional usage of language, but we must understand them to be conventional symbols and not accurate indications of reality.

 

Do you understand the 2-level model as posited by Buddhism? The samvritti and paramartha satya domains (or relative and absolute reality domains)? Phenomena fall in the relative domain (that's why they are dependently originated). Consciousness falls in the Absolute domain, that's why it's not a phenomenon. That's why language fails to explain consciousness...it can only describe the objects and an awareness of these objects, not pure consciousness. That doesn't mean consciousness doesn't exist independently...it only means it is beyond the relative domain.

 

I'm not sure where I mentioned the difference between awareness and consciousness and why you brought it up. But I will answer that with what you wrote to Bob, that you are too "fixated on words to understand."

 

 

Before stating that everything in the material universe has a beginning and an end, one should first investigate whether there is such thing as a material universe, and the very concept of beginning and end, and whether these ideas are conventional communicative tools or hold to reality, as in whether the symbols match the actual experience.

 

You don't agree on the usage of the word emptiness or consciousness, so agreement on the term "consciousness luminous emptiness" doesn't mean much here. .

 

Luminosity is simply the pure quality, the self-aware clarity of moment to moment arising of any experience. It points to direct experience without a line between "background" or "foreground" Just this, now.

 

The gap between thoughts is simply experiencing another experience that is without thoughts. There is nothing special about it at all. You think, then you taste, then think again. There the tasting was the gap. If you are then going to say, "no, simple pure consciousness between the aggregates, form, thoughts, etc," then it is formless consciousness as it is. And then we have another experience after that, yes? So what's so special about it? (This is kind of off topic, but I also want to metion: Didn't the world in your view come about from this so call Absolute Self? Why? Why did all this suffering come from this absolutely pure source that is eternally blissful? Does it play games with our suffering? That's kind of cruel don't you think?)

 

We love saying "beyond, beyond, beyond" but the truth must be applicable this very moment as it is in whatever state there is. That this Consciousness in beyond time, that it is beyond space, beyond description, beyond this and this and this. Xabir writes about "I Am" ness, but then you refuse to acknowledge that it can be described, and you even wrote above that it cannot be experienced. Why not see reality as it is right at this moment and let the idea of the Ultimate rest? We should be investigating our wrongly held assumptions and not creating a demi-God concept of "beyondness" over and over again as if trying to attain a godly state. Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising, it unlocatability, and be free in it. Why create more unnecessary struggle? It is the "soul"s game, the ego's play.

 

The gap between thoughts is everything...after you can stabilize in the gap is when everything else follows. Good and Evil, suffering and joy are simply in the relative domain...once one realizes the Real Self, the duality of relative domain doesn't matter anymore.

 

Why is the Real Self-based teaching inapplicable in the present moment? Your comments show me that you have some kind of abrahamic baggage that you are carrying, thus this insistence that by suggesting there is an Absolute Self, one is claiming God-hood for his/herself...

 

The Absolute Self is beyond Gods...

[xabir2005]

[3bob]

I think I really like this but my mind is still digesting it.

 

Peace & Love!

 

our minds trace eddies left behind on water to try and find out what made them, but such eddies and whatever made them quickly disappear back into the water...

[3bob]

[xabir2005]

"In Theravada, nirvana is understood as cessation and that's it". by Xabir.

 

Actually I don't really see a "that's it" in Buddhism because of the saying below:

 

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying."

No, what I said and what Buddha said about the four views are not contradictory at all.

 

The Buddha is saying that if a self cannot be located even in this very life, how can the self become non-existing after death? He is saying that a Form Self, or a Formless Self, an Essence of Tathagata cannot be pinned down as a Truth or Reality (see sutta), even in this life, so how can there be a persisting Self continuing after death, or how can the Self suddenly cease after death?

 

When I say cessation, I do not mean cessation of a 'self' (there is no self even now, what is there to cease?), I am saying the cessation of the 12 links, the cessation of the cycle of rebirth.

 

Hence what I am talking about, is the cessation of the 12 links. It is utter cessation - literal meaning of parinirvana.

 

Since you quoted about the four false views, I should quote the entire sutta so that the context of the sutta can be understood:

 

SN 22.86 PTS: S iii 116 CDB i 936

Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 2004–2010

Alternate translation: Walshe

This sutta is identical to SN 44.2.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in the Great Wood, at the Hall of the Gabled Pavilion. At that time Ven. Anuradha was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut.

 

Then a large number of wandering sectarians went to Ven. Anuradha and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Anuradha, "Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."

 

When this was said, Ven. Anuradha said to the wandering sectarians, "Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."

 

When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to Ven. Anuradha, "This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced." So the wandering sectarians, addressing Ven. Anuradha as they would a newcomer or a fool, got up from their seats and left.

 

Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to Ven. Anuradha: "If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?"

 

Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

 

"When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

 

"When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left.

 

"Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'"

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

Edited August 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

"Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising..." by LS

 

A moment is a moment in the flows of time and space, simply stop all time and all space and stand in absolute stillness that is absolutely fast, thus without an arising or a falling; that my friend is along the lines of the inherent, non-dual eternal.

 

Om

This is the eternal nature of impermanence, not eternal "stillness." When the notion of "witness" is discarded, we experience stillness in movement because we perceive it without a center, without a reference point. We also experience movement in stillness because equanimity that arises from seeing phenomena as empty.

 

In fact, the position you take above is detrimental to meditative progress because the seeker continues to try to find states that are "absolutely still," clings to it, believes it to be ultimates, sees phenomena as rising in it. I do not know what your practice consists of, but if it is finding states without thought, I'd suggest that is a method towards insight and not trying to reach a "still" state.

 

I'm not sure how many times the importance of luminous aspect has been stressed in these discussions. The experience has not be dismissed, but incorporated.

 

Bob, I think you are confused at the application of terms as characteristics or nouns. Luminosity is not a noun, it is not a thing, it is a characteristic. Like "roundness" or "roughness" Because everything I see in a particular room is round, I do not think to myself "ah ha!" there is "roundness" behind the object! But rather the object is displaying a characteristic of roundness and so on.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

No, what I said and what Buddha said about the four views are not contradictory at all.

 

The Buddha is saying that if a self cannot be located even in this very life, how can the self become non-existing after death? He is saying that a Form Self, or a Formless Self, an Essence of Tathagata cannot be pinned down as a Truth or Reality (see sutta), even in this life, so how can there be a persisting Self continuing after death, or how can the Self suddenly cease after death?

 

When I say cessation, I do not mean cessation of a 'self' (there is no self even now, what is there to cease?), I am saying the cessation of the 12 links, the cessation of the cycle of rebirth.

 

Hence what I am talking about, is the cessation of the 12 links. It is utter cessation - literal meaning of parinirvana.

 

Since you quoted about the four false views, I should quote the entire sutta so that the context of the sutta can be understood:

 

SN 22.86 PTS: S iii 116 CDB i 936

Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 20042010

Alternate translation: Walshe

This sutta is identical to SN 44.2.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in the Great Wood, at the Hall of the Gabled Pavilion. At that time Ven. Anuradha was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut.

 

Then a large number of wandering sectarians went to Ven. Anuradha and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Anuradha, "Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."

 

When this was said, Ven. Anuradha said to the wandering sectarians, "Friends, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."

 

When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to Ven. Anuradha, "This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced." So the wandering sectarians, addressing Ven. Anuradha as they would a newcomer or a fool, got up from their seats and left.

 

Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to Ven. Anuradha: "If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?"

 

Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

 

"When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

 

"When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left.

 

"Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'"

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."...

 

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

 

No contradictions? Yet there are several major and a great many minor schools of Buddhism that do not agree on certain doctrines... If I ever join a school I will then change to their view, which the Buddha also warned about.

 

The "Self" which is not what it may seem, can be located (in a sense) in this life but not in the way that many of us may think: For instance here is part of a text that probably you and many Buddhists will deny, thus another contradiction in interpretation:

 

"...The monks were taken aback. They said, Honored One, according to all you have taught and spoken, we have been asked to cultivate selflessness, leading to the dropping of the idea of a self. But now you tell us we should cultivate the idea of a selfwhat is the meaning of this?

 

Good, replied the Buddha. You are now asking about meaning. You should know that, like a doctor, you should find the right medicine for an illness. It is as a doctor that I observed the aliments of the world. I saw that ordinary people believe they have a self and that whoever they meet has a self. They think of the self as within the body. But it is not like that. Because it is not like that, I have shown the fallacy of all ideas of self and shown that the self is not there in the way it is thought to be. In everything I have said I have shown that the self is not as people think of it, for this is expedient means, the right medicine.

But that doesn't mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.

 

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Edited August 1, 2010 by 3bob

[Lucky7Strikes]

I got what you wanted to convey perfectly. You didn't understand what I was suggesting...a phenomenon can be with both label and form or only label or only form. Even your mental image is a phenomenon, as is your dreams, your day dreams etc.

Yes! I was getting at that too! Then we should apply this to see then whether there is an objective phenomena beyond our perceptions such as a real locatable tissue box. Or whether such definite phenomena is knowable.

 

Do you understand the 2-level model as posited by Buddhism? The samvritti and paramartha satya domains (or relative and absolute reality domains)? Phenomena fall in the relative domain (that's why they are dependently originated). Consciousness falls in the Absolute domain, that's why it's not a phenomenon. That's why language fails to explain consciousness...it can only describe the objects and an awareness of these objects, not pure consciousness. That doesn't mean consciousness doesn't exist independently...it only means it is beyond the relative domain.

The trouble with language enters here again. When we say absolute and relative domains, it seems as if we are talking of two different worlds, but when we say absolute and relative truths, we can understand it better. When the context of the teaching is speaking of conventionality of language and communication, which is bound to be relative, we cannot dismiss it as false, because then we wouldn't be able to communicate! So ultimately, relative truths are not really truth, but correct methods of conveying the truth. The word "impermanence" is not the truth, its indicated meaning is.

 

Before you say phenomena fall in the relative domain, I think we should thoroughly investigate the nature of phenomena and whether or not it can be separated from our awareness. If we follow this through, even formlessness is phenomena, as dark is not the ending of sight, but the absence of light.

 

Absolute truth is simply the truth that is constant in every and all experience, such as "impermanence." You wouldn't say there is the domain of impermanence is absolute and the domain of permanence is relative, it wouldn't make much sense because the meanings would simply cancel each other out.

 

If Consciousness doesn't exist independently, then is is bound to the relative. For it to be absolute, it must be perfect. And looking at this world, the world that has it as its source, this eternal, blissful state/thing, it is far from independent and perfectly flawed.

 

The gap between thoughts is everything...after you can stabilize in the gap is when everything else follows. Good and Evil, suffering and joy are simply in the relative domain...once one realizes the Real Self, the duality of relative domain doesn't matter anymore.

 

Why is the Real Self-based teaching inapplicable in the present moment? Your comments show me that you have some kind of abrahamic baggage that you are carrying, thus this insistence that by suggesting there is an Absolute Self, one is claiming God-hood for his/herself...

 

The Absolute Self is beyond Gods...

The gap between thoughts is not everything. I can access this state in any number of ways and, it is not everything. You cannot stabilize any state. If this absolute had been stabilized there would be no world at all, no need for the world really. When we apply this teaching from moment to moment, one will notice characteristics to reality that is seemingly continuous. But ultimately, the confusion arises dually that there is this world, and apart from it the conceiver of the world.

 

I think I read this from one of Xabir's posts, but the mind frees itself from permanence of phenomena only to be trapped again by the "nowness" the "presence" of experience.

 

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

 

 

"Your comments show me that you have some kind of abrahamic baggage that you are carrying, thus this insistence that by suggesting there is an Absolute Self, one is claiming God-hood for his/herself...

 

The Absolute Self is beyond Gods..."

 

Yes I am partially suggesting that. But call it God or Self, isn't it your goal to realize this state, be at one with this Ultimate. Isn't it your goal to "merge" with the Absolute? to identify with it? To recognize it as eternal?

 

Or do you continually tell yourself that the Self is beyond and beyond and beyond. Advaita suggests seeing the gap between thoughts so that you would see consciousness in all experience, even in no-thought states, and realize it has been there all along. Self inquiry of Who am I? and the repetition of I AM lets you recognize awareness in all states and not necessarily a "beyond and beyond" state.

 

What exactly does your practice consist of?

 

I am assuming these discussions are to help one's practice of insight and meditation. In my humble opinion, attempts to settle mental scores or convince oneself of such useless things such as Buddhism and Hinduism are same, or Taoism or Hinduism are same, or even Hinduism and Hinduism are the same, are quite a waste of time. They are obviously different, or we wouldn't be having this debate, or all those varying sects in either traditions wouldn't have developed.

 

Although I think it is often fruitless to discuss one's own personal experience due to several reasons (exaggerations, attachments, labeling, imitating, etc...) I think it would shed light on the placement of this discussion. Is it a mere mental masturbation of hypotheticals, or is it actually relevant? If you want to stick to your school of thought that all religions are the same, or they point to the same moon, and that gives you comfort, I don't think there's a need for this lengthy thread at all. Xabir, Thusness, and Vaj speak from their experience and not philosophical expositions.

 

This has been my utmost mistake in the past discussing these issues. One's own practice reveals and challenges false models, what is important is that there is an alternative way of interpreting reality which I'm sure you have been reveal to enough times here.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No contradictions? Yet there are several major and a great many minor schools of Buddhism that do not agree on certain doctrines... If I ever join a school I will then change to their view, which the Buddha also warned about.

 

The "Self" which is not what it may seem, can be located (in a sense) in this life but not in the way that many of us may think: For instance here is part of a text that probably you and many Buddhists will deny, thus another contradiction in interpretation:

 

"...The monks were taken aback. They said, “Honored One, according to all you have taught and spoken, we have been asked to cultivate selflessness, leading to the dropping of the idea of a self. But now you tell us we should cultivate the idea of a self—what is the meaning of this?”

 

Good”, replied the Buddha. “You are now asking about meaning. You should know that, like a doctor, you should find the right medicine for an illness. It is as a doctor that I observed the aliments of the world. I saw that ordinary people believe they have a self and that whoever they meet has a self. They think of the self as within the body. But it is not like that. Because it is not like that, I have shown the fallacy of all ideas of self and shown that the self is not there in the way it is thought to be. In everything I have said I have shown that the self is not as people think of it, for this is expedient means, the right medicine.

But that doesn't mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.”

 

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/10981-the-eternal-self-of-the-buddha/

 

To save people some time!

Edited August 1, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/10981-the-eternal-self-of-the-buddha/

 

To save people some time!

Yeah, my answers about Mahaparinirvana Sutra is already there.

 

Anyway the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra is a late Mahayana development. Like 700 years after Buddha's passing.

 

These teachings do not even appear in the Pali suttas (the original teaching of Buddha), nor early Mahayana (which focus on prajnaparamita teachings).

 

I am not however saying that Mahaparinirvana Sutra is invalid - it just has to be properly understood with a strong foundation of understanding from the previous Buddhist teachings, and many don't.

Edited August 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/10981-the-eternal-self-of-the-buddha/

 

To save people some time!

 

LS, That link does save a lot of time for people not having to re-say or re-type the same things over again, but for me it does not resolve anything about various interpretations... Btw, even if the various texts were perfect recordings of the Buddha's teachings that still does mean that there is perfect understanding of same in the people who may hear or re-state it. This is pointed out in the sutras themselves with one major example being that of Ananda missing several key things while being in the immediate presence of the Buddha!! The same type of problem takes place in most all teachings that have ever been given on this planet. Having said that I agree about experience being of primary importance, otherwise such is mainly a passing intellectual exercise at best; yet what I've also noticed is that we don't hear much about Buddhist Lamas and Hindu Rishis, who have all sorts of experience, meeting for debates or even to find common ground... apparently most of them are just as entrenched in their own schools and sects as the everyday masses are or perhaps more so? (regardless of or perhaps because of "experience")

 

Good luck finding your way or the Way people.

[xabir2005]

LS, That link does save a lot of time for people not having to re-say or re-type the same things over again, but for me it does not resolve anything about various interpretations... Btw, even if the various texts were perfect recordings of the Buddha's teachings that still does mean that there is perfect understanding of same in the people who may hear or re-state it. This is pointed out in the sutras themselves with one major example being that of Ananda missing several key things while being in the immediate presence of the Buddha!! The same type of problem takes place in most all teachings that have ever been given on this planet. Having said that I agree about experience being of primary importance, otherwise such is mainly a passing intellectual exercise at best; yet what I've also noticed is that we don't hear much about Buddhist Lamas and Hindu Rishis, who have all sorts of experience, meeting for debates or even to find common ground... apparently most of them are just as entrenched in their own schools and sects as the everyday masses are or perhaps more so? (regardless of or perhaps because of "experience")

 

Good luck finding your way or the Way people.

Hi again...

 

Ananda missing Buddha's teaching, I presume, you're refering to Shurangama Sutra which is again a latter day Mahayana Sutra (in fact written at a date even latter than Mahaparinirvana Sutra). In fact, it was the last Mahayana Sutra, having appeared some time 1000 years after Buddha's passing.

 

Again I'm not saying Shurangama Sutra is invalid or an unauthentic Mahayana scripture - in fact I love Shurangama Sutra very much and find a lot of wisdom in it. Nevertheless... since it is a Mahayana Sutra, it is not a historical event, but a Sambhogakaya vision of an latter day enlightened master.

 

However this is not the point of my reply... rather, I would like to point out that Ananda was accepted by everyone to only have achieved the level of Sotapanna at the time of Buddha's life, and as such, will be prone to misunderstanding Buddha's teaching while he was living.

 

Which means throughout the life of the Buddha, he was only at the first out of four stage of enlightenment. He did not have a full understanding of Dharma then. In the scripture it is said that only Arhants are incapable of misinterpreting what the Buddha was talking about.

 

And precisely for this reason, Ananda was not admitted into the First Buddhist Council in the beginning.

 

The First Buddhist Council consists of 500 monks, *who are all arhants*. To join the council, the criteria is that you MUST be an arhant, otherwise you might bring in distorted understandings into the council.

 

It was a council set up to recite, discuss, and confirm the teachings of the Buddha as they have heard, so that the teachings can be preserved and passed down to the latter generations.

 

Ananda was was left out at the time of the first council of Buddha's own disciples at first, because he wasn't an arhat. He was Buddha's attendant. He heard every word that Buddha taught, and memorized them all, but he didn't meditate much because he was too busy. Some time after Buddha's death, there was a meeting of all the arhats, but since Ananda wasn't an arhat he couldn't go. So he kept meditating, trying at the last minute to become enlightened, and it got to be midnight, 2, 3 o'clock in the morning of the first council of Buddhist arhats, but still he couldn't make it, even though he was the repository of all of Buddha's words.

 

All the other arhats wanted him to go, but he couldn't since he wasn't an arhat. Finally, just before it was time to wake up, Ananda just gave up and was very disappointed he didn't attain Arhantship. Then he got enlightened, because he saw things as they were. It was the end of the struggle. No more trying to become an arhat, and he became an arhat. How did he became an arhant? Ananda was pondering over a question similar to what Buddha had taught Bahiya in Bahiya Sutta that ‘in hearing, just the heard’. Ananda struggled hard to penetrate the profound teaching of Buddha, the meaning of Anatta. He finally realized the truth of anatta thereby freeing himself from artificial struggle. There is no Ananda to attain Arhatship. ‘In hearing, it is truly only just sound, no hearer’. Always so regardless of one’s depth of understanding, anatta remains a dharma seal, effortlessly so!

 

Now, Ananda having become enlightened, was no longer able to misinterprete the Buddha's teachings and message. This is how he was let in to join the First Buddhist Council, and he was able to recite all the Buddha's teachings from beginning to end.

Edited August 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

This is the eternal nature of impermanence, not eternal "stillness." When the notion of "witness" is discarded, we experience stillness in movement because we perceive it without a center, without a reference point. We also experience movement in stillness because equanimity that arises from seeing phenomena as empty.

 

In fact, the position you take above is detrimental to meditative progress because the seeker continues to try to find states that are "absolutely still," clings to it, believes it to be ultimates, sees phenomena as rising in it. I do not know what your practice consists of, but if it is finding states without thought, I'd suggest that is a method towards insight and not trying to reach a "still" state.

 

I'm not sure how many times the importance of luminous aspect has been stressed in these discussions. The experience has not be dismissed, but incorporated.

 

Bob, I think you are confused at the application of terms as characteristics or nouns. Luminosity is not a noun, it is not a thing, it is a characteristic. Like "roundness" or "roughness" Because everything I see in a particular room is round, I do not think to myself "ah ha!" there is "roundness" behind the object! But rather the object is displaying a characteristic of roundness and so on.

 

Hello LS,

You made an under-standable mis-understanding concerning my eariler post where I could have used the word "movement" instead of fast, but I meant the same thing: "simply stop all time and all space and stand in absolute stillness that is absolutely fast" (meaning absolute movement), thus we apparently have some agreement related to your first paragraph in the quote above.

 

And part of a relaed quote by Sosan:

Consider movement stationary and the stationary in motion, and both the state of movement and the state of rest disappear. When such dualities cease to exist Oneness itself cannot exist. To this ultimate finality no law or description applies..."

 

Bob

Edited August 2, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

[dwai]

Yes! I was getting at that too! Then we should apply this to see then whether there is an objective phenomena beyond our perceptions such as a real locatable tissue box. Or whether such definite phenomena is knowable.

 

 

The trouble with language enters here again. When we say absolute and relative domains, it seems as if we are talking of two different worlds, but when we say absolute and relative truths, we can understand it better. When the context of the teaching is speaking of conventionality of language and communication, which is bound to be relative, we cannot dismiss it as false, because then we wouldn't be able to communicate! So ultimately, relative truths are not really truth, but correct methods of conveying the truth. The word "impermanence" is not the truth, its indicated meaning is.

 

I would rather say that Relative Truths work in the phenomenlogical context, Absolute Truth works in the Non-phenomenological context.

Relative truths might be a limited way to express the Absolute Truth, but Relative Truths are also everything else which doesn't necessarily have to deal with or even acknowledge absolute truth.

 

 

Before you say phenomena fall in the relative domain, I think we should thoroughly investigate the nature of phenomena and whether or not it can be separated from our awareness. If we follow this through, even formlessness is phenomena, as dark is not the ending of sight, but the absence of light.

 

From a phenomenological vantage point, formlessness can also be a phenomenon because even though it doesn't have a form, if it can be labeled and it has a beginning and an end. So, a "thought" is a formless phenomenon. How does that have any bearing with the Absolute Self?

 

 

Absolute truth is simply the truth that is constant in every and all experience, such as "impermanence." You wouldn't say there is the domain of impermanence is absolute and the domain of permanence is relative, it wouldn't make much sense because the meanings would simply cancel each other out.

 

If Consciousness doesn't exist independently, then is is bound to the relative. For it to be absolute, it must be perfect. And looking at this world, the world that has it as its source, this eternal, blissful state/thing, it is far from independent and perfectly flawed.

 

There in lies our fallacy. We think we understand how a noumenon like Consciousness is supposed to behave. And that too, by following the rules and laws of the phenomenological world. The very reason Consciousness is noumenal is because it is beyond labels and forms and is not governed by laws of the phenomenal world.

 

 

The gap between thoughts is not everything. I can access this state in any number of ways and, it is not everything. You cannot stabilize any state. If this absolute had been stabilized there would be no world at all, no need for the world really. When we apply this teaching from moment to moment, one will notice characteristics to reality that is seemingly continuous. But ultimately, the confusion arises dually that there is this world, and apart from it the conceiver of the world.

 

It is the root of realization...without getting here (however that might be), one cannot realize Pure Consciousness. And without stabilizing oneself in this state, one cannot begin to fathom what this state entails.

 

I think I read this from one of Xabir's posts, but the mind frees itself from permanence of phenomena only to be trapped again by the "nowness" the "presence" of experience.

 

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

 

 

"Your comments show me that you have some kind of abrahamic baggage that you are carrying, thus this insistence that by suggesting there is an Absolute Self, one is claiming God-hood for his/herself...

 

The Absolute Self is beyond Gods..."

 

Yes I am partially suggesting that. But call it God or Self, isn't it your goal to realize this state, be at one with this Ultimate. Isn't it your goal to "merge" with the Absolute? to identify with it? To recognize it as eternal?

 

There is no merging...only a realization.

 

 

Or do you continually tell yourself that the Self is beyond and beyond and beyond. Advaita suggests seeing the gap between thoughts so that you would see consciousness in all experience, even in no-thought states, and realize it has been there all along. Self inquiry of Who am I? and the repetition of I AM lets you recognize awareness in all states and not necessarily a "beyond and beyond" state.

 

Indeed...

 

 

What exactly does your practice consist of?

 

Meditation in the gap, induced in numerous ways -- via Pranayama, Hatha Yoga, Taiji Chuan, simply sitting, simply lying down, walking, driving, brushing my teeth, etc.

 

 

I am assuming these discussions are to help one's practice of insight and meditation. In my humble opinion, attempts to settle mental scores or convince oneself of such useless things such as Buddhism and Hinduism are same, or Taoism or Hinduism are same, or even Hinduism and Hinduism are the same, are quite a waste of time. They are obviously different, or we wouldn't be having this debate, or all those varying sects in either traditions wouldn't have developed.

 

Although I think it is often fruitless to discuss one's own personal experience due to several reasons (exaggerations, attachments, labeling, imitating, etc...) I think it would shed light on the placement of this discussion. Is it a mere mental masturbation of hypotheticals, or is it actually relevant? If you want to stick to your school of thought that all religions are the same, or they point to the same moon, and that gives you comfort, I don't think there's a need for this lengthy thread at all. Xabir, Thusness, and Vaj speak from their experience and not philosophical expositions.

 

This has been my utmost mistake in the past discussing these issues. One's own practice reveals and challenges false models, what is important is that there is an alternative way of interpreting reality which I'm sure you have been reveal to enough times here.

 

 

All of these are lofty goals...to better one's personal practice, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that only One way has it right or only one way is the best. It is all relative to the individual...you might find Buddhism best, I might find Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta all leading to the same experience. They are relative truths all, trying to convey the absolute.

 

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah, my answers about Mahaparinirvana Sutra is already there.

 

Anyway the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra is a late Mahayana development. Like 700 years after Buddha's passing.

 

These teachings do not even appear in the Pali suttas (the original teaching of Buddha), nor early Mahayana (which focus on prajnaparamita teachings).

 

I am not however saying that Mahaparinirvana Sutra is invalid - it just has to be properly understood with a strong foundation of understanding from the previous Buddhist teachings, and many don't.

 

I and all real Buddhist scholars including Tibetan Masters agree. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Angulimaliya Sutra are revealing that the intuitive realization of emptiness is a positive and life affirming realization, and not a nihilistic negation, that is all. Neither of these Sutras are talking about a transcendent inherent existence of all.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

All of these are lofty goals...to better one's personal practice, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that only One way has it right or only one way is the best. It is all relative to the individual...you might find Buddhism best, I might find Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta all leading to the same experience. They are relative truths all, trying to convey the absolute.

 

 

There is no self sustained absolute truth according to Buddhist cosmology. There is only relativity, absolutely.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I would rather say that Relative Truths work in the phenomenlogical context, Absolute Truth works in the Non-phenomenological context.

Relative truths might be a limited way to express the Absolute Truth, but Relative Truths are also everything else which doesn't necessarily have to deal with or even acknowledge absolute truth.

 

From a phenomenological vantage point, formlessness can also be a phenomenon because even though it doesn't have a form, if it can be labeled and it has a beginning and an end. So, a "thought" is a formless phenomenon. How does that have any bearing with the Absolute Self?

 

There in lies our fallacy. We think we understand how a noumenon like Consciousness is supposed to behave. And that too, by following the rules and laws of the phenomenological world. The very reason Consciousness is noumenal is because it is beyond labels and forms and is not governed by laws of the phenomenal world.

We must be careful here when we use sentences such as "it is everything else" because such statements are quite useless because we have to clarify what you mean by everything. Every object? That which is behond objects? The characteristic of objects? This is often the phrase used to put a term on a pedestal (I'm not necessarily saying you are doing this).

 

And furthermore, in the second paragraph you seem to be saying that anything that can be labelled is a phenomenon (did you read my criticism on your usage of the term beginning and an end? because it's an important concept to understand that these are extreme notions based on solidifying phenomena). You have just mentioned many times this thing called Consciousness. And if we say, "Non-existence," or "Non-phenomena" or "non-labelledness", we have given labels to non-label things. Does this mean they are phenomena? No not really. Labelling isn't that important.

 

The word noumenon is used to connote cognition in the history of its usage through philosophy and language, so I mentioned thought and formless ness.

 

So the word doesn't quite fit what you are trying to get at. And in your case it cannot be labelled, it is indescribable, etc. etc. Then there is no use for any of this discussion is it? In fact, there is no use for you to at all think about these things. And moreover, there is no way you can use your understanding or effort to get there because these are ways learned via the laws of phenomena world. And if it is beyond the workings of the phenomenal word, you definitely cannot go from phenomena to this Ultimate.

 

So do you see how quite useless this conceptualization, this glorification of the Self is to actual practice?

 

If we cannot understand through language, physical, mental, form, formless efforts, including that of gap between thought, which is, mind you, still a phenomena,

 

what is the use of all this talk? Why do you at all read, write, think, do yoga to realize this thing when you have stated here you can't realize it by these methods of "phenomena"?

 

It is the root of realization...without getting here (however that might be), one cannot realize Pure Consciousness. And without stabilizing oneself in this state, one cannot begin to fathom what this state entails.

 

There is no merging...only a realization.

 

Indeed...

Then do you agree that this state is not a beyond state? That it is constant in every experience?

 

But then there is two parts to one experience isn't there? The consciousness and the phenomena.

 

But we must end out discussion about consciousness here, because we can no longer use words to describe it.

 

Meditation in the gap, induced in numerous ways -- via Pranayama, Hatha Yoga, Taiji Chuan, simply sitting, simply lying down, walking, driving, brushing my teeth, etc.

 

All of these are lofty goals...to better one's personal practice, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that only One way has it right or only one way is the best. It is all relative to the individual...you might find Buddhism best, I might find Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta all leading to the same experience. They are relative truths all, trying to convey the absolute.

You don't know at all that these traditions lead to the same experience unless you believe yourself to have truly understood and experienced them all. Yet I have yet come across your commentaries on Vaj's experience or Thusness's stages from an experiential standpoint. And I say this with respect, but your stance has always been from a purely hypothetical standpoint (And unfortunately, mine has often been also, but hopefully that will die down).

 

"to better one's practice..." this statement is very important and I'm glad you mentioned it. Why don't you give the "other Buddhist" interpretations a try? Consider an alternative and see where it takes you. If you don't meditate on what what has been written against you over and over, how will you know if it is not indeed better or worse? Or more importantly, what the hell have we been doing if you or I have not even done that yet?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Meditation in the gap, induced in numerous ways -- via Pranayama, Hatha Yoga, Taiji Chuan, simply sitting, simply lying down, walking, driving, brushing my teeth, etc.

We are speaking of gaining insight into reality of every moment, and not about inducing states through practice.

 

We induce states in order to gain deeper insight into reality, or for practical purposes (like inducing wakefulness by drinking coffee), not be lost in a "gap." I think this is actually very revealing of limitations of this discussion, because the very purpose of practice for you and I are different.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes