'No self' my experience so far...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Sorry, yeah I missed it.

 

Anatta means there is in seeing just the seen, no agent/seer behind seeing. Seeing is just the experience of scenery.

 

Same goes to hearing/heard, thinking/thought, etc etc.

 

The self-luminous process of hearing/seeing/thinking activities is self-luminous ('self-cognizant') rolls on its own accord due to dependent origination, without an agent, a perceiver, or a doer, or a separate self behind them.

 

As for 'there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing' - actually the organism is simply the process of varying dependently originated bodily and mental activities, including hearing and seeing. I am not denying hearing and seeing as a process, I am denying an independent, unchanging, and inherent organism-self.

 

Just like the word 'weather' does not refer to a thing-in-itself, but an ungraspable ever-changing process of clouds passing, wind, lightning, rain, etc etc.

 

Therefore there is no organism 'behind hearing and seeing' since 'organism' is simply a label or convention for the various activities including hearing and seeing, just as there is no such thing as 'a weather behind clouds and raining' as 'weather' is simply a label for a conglomerate of ever-changing activities like clouds, rain, lightning, etc etc.

 

There is no separate agent, hearer, seer, behind perception... just as there is no windness behind blowing, weatherness behind raining, riverness behind flowing, etc.

 

 

No riverness?! Then what's THIS??

 

[Vajrahridaya]

No riverness?! Then what's THIS??

 

 

Exactly, it's a dance with parts that can be endlessly broken down and re-arranged. No static essence, just a dancing play!

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Exactly, it's a dance with parts that can be endlessly broken down and re-arranged. No static essence, just a dancing play!

 

It is quite a dance, yesssurreee

[Birch]

No riverness?! Then what's THIS??

 

That's almost as horrible as the r-word :-p

[Otis]

Sorry, yeah I missed it.

 

Anatta means there is in seeing just the seen, no agent/seer behind seeing. Seeing is just the experience of scenery.

 

Same goes to hearing/heard, thinking/thought, etc etc.

 

The self-luminous process of hearing/seeing/thinking activities is self-luminous ('self-cognizant') rolls on its own accord due to dependent origination, without an agent, a perceiver, or a doer, or a separate self behind them.

 

As for 'there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing' - actually the organism is simply the process of varying dependently originated bodily and mental activities, including hearing and seeing. I am not denying hearing and seeing as a process, I am denying an independent, unchanging, and inherent organism-self.

 

Just like the word 'weather' does not refer to a thing-in-itself, but an ungraspable ever-changing process of clouds passing, wind, lightning, rain, etc etc.

 

Therefore there is no organism 'behind hearing and seeing' since 'organism' is simply a label or convention for the various activities including hearing and seeing, just as there is no such thing as 'a weather behind clouds and raining' as 'weather' is simply a label for a conglomerate of ever-changing activities like clouds, rain, lightning, etc etc.

 

There is no separate agent, hearer, seer, behind perception... just as there is no windness behind blowing, weatherness behind raining, riverness behind flowing, etc.

This is a hugely unsatisfying answer, xabir.

 

First with the old: "thinking, no thinker; hearing, no hearer" bit. You know full well that I don't accept this statement at face value, since we've had this conversation before. So, offering this jargon as if it were an explanation, is pretty futile.

 

I asked you what "no self" points to, and you offer the "seeing, no seer" as response. But "seeing, no seer" is not an explanation; in fact, it's totally meaningless. It's just another pointer.

 

Besides being meaningless, it has no surface validity at all, and should not be used like an explanation. When I look around at the world, I see plenty of thinkers, hearers, and seers, but I see no thinking, hearing, and seeing. So, if anything should be said to not exist, it would be the thing for which there is no material object.

 

Furthermore, the statement is flat out wack. I challenge you to go out in the universe, and find "thinking, without a thinker" or "hearing, without a hearer." Maybe on some other planet, but not here. Thinking, as far as I can tell, is always predicated on a thinker.

 

And then your bit about "there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing" is just lame. All you've done is re-defined "exist" to exclude anything which arises from more fundamental parts or processes. By this logic, there is not only no organism, but no society, no animals, no life, no world, no space. Because each of these are phenomena that emerge from deeper phenomena. But to say that they "don't exist" is to totally abuse the word "exist". You've just defined away all of existence.

 

Yes, dependent origination points to important lessons, but it should not be mistaken for an explanation of "how things work". It is rather an important reminder for us to be humble in our claims that we can tell "how things work". Because there are always deeper underlying phenomena and causes, it thus behooves us to admit that we really can't know "the true nature of reality". D.O. points to mystery, not to certainty, and should not be used as an argument for why you know "the true nature of reality".

 

What I am decrying is not D.O., annatta, and the other teachings of the Buddha. What I'm decrying is your and RT's dogmatic use of "no self" and "hearing, no hearer" as if they were literal and self-evident truths, rather than pointers toward certain important phenomenological perspectives on selfhood. And I take issue with you and RT implying that this concept of "no self" leads to "liberation" and seeing the "true nature of reality". If you really have access to that kind of perspective, I expect you should be able to explain yourself better.

[xabir2005]

This is a hugely unsatisfying answer, xabir.

 

First with the old: "thinking, no thinker; hearing, no hearer" bit. You know full well that I don't accept this statement at face value, since we've had this conversation before. So, offering this jargon as if it were an explanation, is pretty futile.

 

I asked you what "no self" points to, and you offer the "seeing, no seer" as response. But "seeing, no seer" is not an explanation; in fact, it's totally meaningless. It's just another pointer.

The explanation is below.

 

Besides being meaningless, it has no surface validity at all, and should not be used like an explanation. When I look around at the world, I see plenty of thinkers, hearers, and seers,

You see plenty of bodies, not thinker or seers.

 

but I see no thinking, hearing, and seeing.

Yes. This mindstream is distinct from others, conventionally. His seeing is conventionally different from your seeing.

So, if anything should be said to not exist, it would be the thing for which there is no material object.

Yes, there is no formless substance hiding anywhere. That is precisely my point. There is just that experience of sight, sound, etc. That is what I call 'seeing, hearing'. There is no formless seer or hearer behind experience. Therefore in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard!

 

Furthermore, the statement is flat out wack. I challenge you to go out in the universe, and find "thinking, without a thinker" or "hearing, without a hearer." Maybe on some other planet, but not here. Thinking, as far as I can tell, is always predicated on a thinker.

I have already said: in seeing just the seen, means in seeing just the experience of scenery. No seer! No separate, formless substance to be found! It is just ungraspable direct experience only. It is not a self and not a thing.

 

Thinking is not predicated by a thinker. The notion of thinker is just another thought! Just thought after thought.

 

And by the way, I don't mean that hearing and thinking arise without cause. Everything arises due to various causes and conditions, including the body, the sense object, etc. But there is no self to be found as an agent - everything arises interdependently originated.

 

Body is interdependent with mind, but body is not an independent or unchanging seer - it is just one of the conditions for the manifestation of consciousness.

 

Just like water, sunlight, etc is not the origin of flower but are one of the vital conditions for flower. Also, water is not the same as flower, and in the same way body is not the same as consciousness, but they are interdependent... but they are interdependently arisen.

And then your bit about "there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing" is just lame. All you've done is re-defined "exist" to exclude anything which arises from more fundamental parts or processes. By this logic, there is not only no organism, but no society, no animals, no life, no world, no space.

I don't say they don't exist, just as I don't say river doesn't exist, weather doesn't exist, wind doesn't exist.

 

I said there is no windness behind blowing, weather-ness behind the everchanging clouds and wind and rain, no unchanging river-ness behind the flowing.

 

Similarly there is no hearer behind the hearing, no seer behind the seeing, thinker behind the thinking, etc.

Because each of these are phenomena that emerge from deeper phenomena.

No... I don't say emerge from deeper phenomena. There is no shallow or deep phenomena. No hierarchy. Just phenomena! Just blowing, flowing, seeing, etc.

But to say that they "don't exist" is to totally abuse the word "exist". You've just defined away all of existence.

Is, is not, existence, non-existence, simply do not apply to the empty nature of reality! Emptiness is therefore free from four extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence and non-existence.

 

These four extremes predicate on an inherent existence - i.e. a self, or a windness, that can 'exist' or 'not exist'. But if a windness of wind cannot be pinned down as a truth or (unchanging, independent, locatable) reality somewhere, nothing of 'is' or 'is not' or 'existence' or 'non-existence' can be said about that! No findable entity can be established to exist, not-exist, etc.

[xabir2005]

Yes, dependent origination points to important lessons, but it should not be mistaken for an explanation of "how things work".

D.O. is exactly how things work.

 

It is rather an important reminder for us to be humble in our claims that we can tell "how things work".

That is not how I or Buddha experiences it.

 

Because there are always deeper underlying phenomena and causes, it thus behooves us to admit that we really can't know "the true nature of reality". D.O. points to mystery, not to certainty, and should not be used as an argument for why you know "the true nature of reality".

It points neither to mystery or conceptual certainty. It points to a non-conceptual realization of how things are interconnected and interdependently arisen... that nothing has independent, unchanging existence in and of itself. This can be directly seen and realized, and this realization is deeply liberating.

 

What I am decrying is not D.O., annatta, and the other teachings of the Buddha. What I'm decrying is your and RT's dogmatic use of "no self" and "hearing, no hearer" as if they were literal and self-evident truths, rather than pointers toward certain important phenomenological perspectives on selfhood.

What is important is a quantum shift of perception.... not a conceptual perspective. What is important is awakeness, not more concepts and perspectives. One just needs to wake up from delusion.

[Otis]

The explanation is below.

 

You see plenty of bodies, not thinker or seers.

Yes. This mindstream is distinct from others, conventionally. His seeing is conventionally different from your seeing.

Yes, there is no formless substance hiding anywhere. That is precisely my point. There is just that experience of sight, sound, etc. That is what I call 'seeing, hearing'. There is no formless seer or hearer behind experience. Therefore in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard!

 

I have already said: in seeing just the seen, means in seeing just the experience of scenery. No seer! No separate, formless substance to be found! It is just ungraspable direct experience only. It is not a self and not a thing.

 

Thinking is not predicated by a thinker. The notion of thinker is just another thought! Just thought after thought.

 

And by the way, I don't mean that hearing and thinking arise without cause. Everything arises due to various causes and conditions, including the body, the sense object, etc. But there is no self to be found as an agent - everything arises interdependently originated.

 

Body is interdependent with mind, but body is not an independent or unchanging seer - it is just one of the conditions for the manifestation of consciousness.

 

Just like water, sunlight, etc is not the origin of flower but are one of the vital conditions for flower. Also, water is not the same as flower, and in the same way body is not the same as consciousness, but they are interdependent... but they are interdependently arisen.

I don't say they don't exist, just as I don't say river doesn't exist, weather doesn't exist, wind doesn't exist.

 

I said there is no windness behind blowing, weather-ness behind the everchanging clouds and wind and rain, no unchanging river-ness behind the flowing.

 

Similarly there is no hearer behind the hearing, no seer behind the seeing, thinker behind the thinking, etc.

 

No... I don't say emerge from deeper phenomena. There is no shallow or deep phenomena. No hierarchy. Just phenomena! Just blowing, flowing, seeing, etc.

Is, is not, existence, non-existence, simply do not apply to the empty nature of reality! Emptiness is therefore free from four extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence and non-existence.

 

These four extremes predicate on an inherent existence - i.e. a self, or a windness, that can 'exist' or 'not exist'. But if a windness of wind cannot be pinned down as a truth or (unchanging, independent, locatable) reality somewhere, nothing of 'is' or 'is not' or 'existence' or 'non-existence' can be said about that! No findable entity can be established to exist, not-exist, etc.

I utterly disagree with your understanding of emptiness. Emptiness (as I understand it) should not be read as a statement of how the world actually is. Emptiness describes the fact that any individual's "reality" is an interior construct, not the actual world. That "reality" is not an accurate or adequate description of the actual, but a mental-made thing, constructed of stories and heuristics.

 

Emptiness says: my construct of the world will never be correct, precisely because I can never know, and it is precisely my insistence that my construct is right, which keeps me in delusion. To see the world in emptiness is not to know that it is empty; it is rather to empty one's self of certainty, of knowing.

 

What is delusion, xabir? Delusion is precisely mistaking my construct of the world, for the world itself. It's believing my own BS.

 

How does one move beyond delusion? Not by arriving at the "right beliefs" (like "no self"), but by surrendering certainty about the world. Letting go of the grasping need to be right about things. The more certain one is, the more "self" one is.

 

Saying "there is no riverness, windness, or weatherness" is merely the same as redefining "existence". You're "winning" by changing the language. And it totally ignores the obvious observation that "thinking" is invisible to everyone except the thinker, whereas the thinker (the one doing the thinking) is utterly obvious to any observer.

 

The power in a metaphor is in its ability to predict, to elucidate, to help provide answers. But "no self", if taken literally, does none of this. It just flies in the face of the obvious, without any deeper insight given. Emergence is a much more robust metaphor than your "there is no" junk. Likewise, there are much more subtle and sensible metaphors (several of which I've given, above) than a literal translation of "no self".

[Otis]

D.O. is exactly how things work.

That is not how I or Buddha experiences it.

It points neither to mystery or conceptual certainty. It points to a non-conceptual realization of how things are interconnected and interdependently arisen... that nothing has independent, unchanging existence in and of itself. This can be directly seen and realized, and this realization is deeply liberating.

 

What is important is a quantum shift of perception.... not a conceptual perspective. What is important is awakeness, not more concepts and perspectives. One just needs to wake up from delusion.

And how do you know, xabir, that you have woken up from delusion? How do you know that your "quantum shift of perception" has just not just moved you to a new delusion? How do you know that your "direct seeing and realization" are accurate, and that your understanding of the Buddha is correct? How do you know that it isn't all just your attachment to being right provoking you into making premature declarations of understanding?

 

How do you protect yourself from delusion, when you are so certain that you see "the true nature of reality"? How would you ever catch yourself, when you seem utterly unwilling to doubt your beliefs (you insist on calling them "facts").

 

The biggest idiots in the world, are those who are most certain about their beliefs. The shooter in Norway, Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers are excellent examples of that. How do you make sure that you're not falling into this category?

[xabir2005]

I utterly disagree with your understanding of emptiness. Emptiness (as I understand it) should not be read as a statement of how the world actually is.

 

Actually, the fact that emptiness is how the world actually is, is simply a figure of speech. What I mean is: since everything dependently originates and is empty of an independent essence, 'is' and 'is not' does not apply to a 'world'. We cannot establish a world apart from those dependently originated, luminous and empty activities.

 

Emptiness describes the fact that any individual's "reality" is an interior construct, not the actual world.

 

Since everything dependently originates, there is no actual independently existing solid world.

 

For example, if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

 

That "reality" is not an accurate or adequate description of the actual, but a mental-made thing, constructed of stories and heuristics.

 

I do not assert an independent or unchanging reality in or outside the senses. The senses are purely luminous - shining vividly as pure clarity, and yet is empty of any locatable independent existence. It's apparent existence is completely relative to all its causes and conditions... and therefore are utterly unestablished.

 

Emptiness says: my construct of the world will never be correct, precisely because I can never know, and it is precisely my insistence that my construct is right, which keeps me in delusion. To see the world in emptiness is not to know that it is empty; it is rather to empty one's self of certainty, of knowing.

 

No that is not emptiness.

 

Emptiness simply means the lack of findable, independent, unchanging existence.

 

What is delusion, xabir? Delusion is precisely mistaking my construct of the world, for the world itself. It's believing my own BS.

 

Delusion is the mistake of asserting that there is an independent reality - a self, and a world independent in and of itself.

 

How does one move beyond delusion? Not by arriving at the "right beliefs" (like "no self")

 

I did not say right belief liberates.

 

I said, a direct experiential realization, a quantum shift of perception is what liberates. Believing this is useless, or maybe of some help as it points to the right direction but the pointer is not the seeing itself - i.e. I had believed this for years until I realized it by my own contemplation and direct seeing.

 

, but by surrendering certainty about the world.

This can help let go of some attachments, but it does not liberate you from that view of self and world as inherent, independent graspable realities. Realization is essential for liberation. It also does not liberate you from the dualistic view of subject and object.

 

Letting go of the grasping need to be right about things. The more certain one is, the more "self" one is.

Letting go is a good practice, but it is not enough to liberate us from the views of inherency. Deeply rooted is the view that grasp at self and things... it cannot be suppressed by practices. It can only be uprooted via realization, deep experiential seeing.

 

Saying "there is no riverness, windness, or weatherness" is merely the same as redefining "existence". You're "winning" by changing the language.

 

Actually I am not defining existence. I am saying 'existence' does not apply at all, so there is literally nothing to be grasped, and this frees you from grasping and suffering. You cannot find a real existence anywhere. And since no entity can be found, you cannot assert the non-existence of that entity either. The four extremes are transcended in the moment of realization.

[xabir2005]

And it totally ignores the obvious observation that "thinking" is invisible to everyone except the thinker, whereas the thinker (the one doing the thinking) is utterly obvious to any observer.

No... the thinker is the thought... more accurately, there is just the thought. But conventionally, this thought, this mind-stream, is different from that mind-stream. But that does not mean there are 'selves'. There are different mindstreams conventionally, but mindstream does not have a thinker. Just like there are different bodies, but it does not mean there is a soul apart from the body, which apparently you seem to agree earlier.

 

And how do you know, xabir, that you have woken up from delusion? How do you know that your "quantum shift of perception" has just not just moved you to a new delusion?

Because I have woken up from a delusion without asserting something else. If I had established or asserted a new reality, it could be very well I have entered a new delusion, but I have not.

 

I merely free myself from the views of 'is' or 'is not', but I do not assert a new reality (a new dream). I do not say Emptiness is real. Even emptiness is empty. Saying there is "no thinker" does not mean that there is a "no thinker". There is no "thinker", but also no "no thinker". I do not cling to views of existence, non-existence, emptiness, self, or no-self.

 

The teaching of anatta and dependent origination and emptiness is like a fire that burns the stick, and in the end it disappears along with the stick, leaving.... nothing more or short of total freedom.

 

Yet everything is still clearly vividly perceived - just nothing to cling to!

 

How do you know that your "direct seeing and realization" are accurate, and that your understanding of the Buddha is correct? How do you know that it isn't all just your attachment to being right provoking you into making premature declarations of understanding?

When you have realized this, the teachings of emptiness by Buddha become completely clear to you... there will be no doubts.

 

How do you protect yourself from delusion, when you are so certain that you see "the true nature of reality"? How would you ever catch yourself, when you seem utterly unwilling to doubt your beliefs (you insist on calling them "facts").

I am free from beliefs. The biggest and fundamental belief is 'is' and 'is not', of which I am freed.

 

The biggest idiots in the world, are those who are most certain about their beliefs. The shooter in Norway, Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers are excellent examples of that. How do you make sure that you're not falling into this category?

 

Because I do not hold on to views and beliefs.

 

Nagarjuna says in Vigrahavyavartani (v. 29):

.

| I have no pratijna (= proposition, position) to defend.

.

~ [Vg. 29.

~ If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error;

~ But I do not make a proposition; therefore I am not in error.]

.

 

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

 

 

 

A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti)

 

....

 

The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist".

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

 

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

...

 

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The words "I" am posting now are arranged and intended so uniquely as to be solely sourced from the existence of that singular identity, "TzuJanLi".. so that it is observable, and self-evident, that the thoughts arranging and intending these words are based upon and sourced from the 'identity', as if identities were portals through which the source of All experiences itself through the unique identities of itself in multiplicity.. multiplicity, thoughts, and thinkers exist for the purpose of experience, so that 'That' which 'Is', can evolve and experience its own existence..

 

The contrary belief is that there is a benefit to pretending this is not so, in pretending the road to nowhere is a road to somewhere.. the insistence that the individual cultivate a belief that there is no 'thinker', no 'self', is contrary to the natural processes of Life, it is a belief that must be explained and cultivated as it is not a naturally evident experience.. the 'no thinker', no 'self' belief is a regression from the natural progression of evolution, 'no thinker/no self' is a contrived resistance to what 'is'..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

The words "I" ...

Be well..

 

WoW! You put that right out there for everyone to see, didn't you? Hehehe.

 

Of course, you know that I agree with you. (How could I disagree with someone named TzuJan?)

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

WoW! You put that right out there for everyone to see, didn't you? Hehehe.

 

Of course, you know that I agree with you. (How could I disagree with someone named TzuJan?)

Hi Marblehead: You are like a powerful spice, just a dash at the right time.. brings a dull stew to life.. Thanks for the support..

 

Be well..

[Otis]

Actually, the fact that emptiness is how the world actually is, is simply a figure of speech. What I mean is: since everything dependently originates and is empty of an independent essence, 'is' and 'is not' does not apply to a 'world'. We cannot establish a world apart from those dependently originated, luminous and empty activities.

Since everything dependently originates, there is no actual independently existing solid world.

 

For example, if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the "redness" only appears to "belong" to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the "redness" an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a "quantum eyesight" to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute "redness" anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or "redness" -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

I do not assert an independent or unchanging reality in or outside the senses.

So far, we're in complete agreement. You are supporting what I was saying. "Vision of red", as you put it, (probably) does not exist in the actual world, but is merely part of the simulacrum, the interior model of the world. "Reality", as we commonly use it, does not refer to the actual (even though people act as if it does), but only refers to the subjective model. Delusion is mistaking my model of reality, for the actual thing.

 

The senses are purely luminous - shining vividly as pure clarity, and yet is empty of any locatable independent existence. It's apparent existence is completely relative to all its causes and conditions... and therefore are utterly unestablished.

Here's where we start to veer off from each other. The description for "senses" that you give seems perfectly okay to me, as long as we specify that we are talking about the internal phenomenological experience of senses, without preconception. In that case, I'll give it to you: senses are purely luminous.

 

However (and this is at the crux of our conversation), if you take that statement literally, and say that "the senses (literally are) purely luminous", then you're mistaking a subjective experience for a description of actual reality.

 

As far as I can tell, Buddha was writing for egos, not for enlightened people. Since he knew that old beliefs needed to be replaced by new beliefs (until the believer was truly ready to surrender those beliefs) he taught beliefs that shifted the egos' perspectives, so that they could surrender the certainty of their earlier beliefs in "self", "inherent existence", etc. That does not literally mean that there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence". It just means that these beliefs are closer to surrender of the importance of the interior model, than the mundane beliefs that preceded them (which were the very building material of that model). But Buddha was very clear to also include the middle way in his teachings, so that no one would attach literalism and fundamentalism to his words.

 

I believe that if the Buddha lived today, he would speak in terms that included modern science, because science takes emptiness as its central credo, as well. But his words reflected the time and place that he lived in, because that was who he was trying to communicate with. Thus "no self" was a surer way of waking people up from the illusion of self, then was an explanation that referenced neurons.

 

No that is not emptiness.

 

Emptiness simply means the lack of findable, independent, unchanging existence.

I agree that the belief in a "findable, independent, unchanging existence" is a delusion, and that emptiness is not that. But belief in a spaghetti monster who created the world in seven days is also delusion, and emptiness is also the lack of that. Emptiness is not just the negation of a specific worldview, it is the letting go of the importance of whatever worldview I have.

 

As soon as you assert what the world is or is not, what existence is or is not, then you are in the realm of belief. Because none of that is available from the subjective perspective, which sees only its own interior model (the beliefs/habits). The actual world must always be inferred, rather than observed, because we only have our singular organism perspective from which to observe, never an omniscient view. Surrendering the importance of the interior model is exactly what emptiness is.

 

Delusion is the mistake of asserting that there is an independent reality - a self, and a world independent in and of itself.

 

I did not say right belief liberates.

 

I said, a direct experiential realization, a quantum shift of perception is what liberates. Believing this is useless, or maybe of some help as it points to the right direction but the pointer is not the seeing itself - i.e. I had believed this for years until I realized it by my own contemplation and direct seeing.

Whatever conclusion you arrive at, whether from "contemplation and direct seeing" or from wild guessing, is delusion. Once it is a conclusion, it is delusion, because it is trying to force reality into your conceptual box.

 

"A quantum shift of perception" does not necessarily liberate, because it could be a shift into even greater delusion (e.g. the spaghetti monster). So no matter what your "contemplation and direct seeing" arrive at, there is no way to be sure that you are not in delusion, except to empty your need to be right. No matter what views I have, if I don't grasp them too tightly, then I am not trapped by them. And no matter how "right" my views are, if I grasp them tightly as "truth", then I am trapped. This is what delusion means. Emptiness is the opposite of that: letting go of the grasping need to be right.

 

This can help let go of some attachments, but it does not liberate you from that view of self and world as inherent, independent graspable realities. Realization is essential for liberation. It also does not liberate you from the dualistic view of subject and object.

Letting go is a good practice, but it is not enough to liberate us from the views of inherency. Deeply rooted is the view that grasp at self and things... it cannot be suppressed by practices. It can only be uprooted via realization, deep experiential seeing.

Actually I am not defining existence. I am saying 'existence' does not apply at all, so there is literally nothing to be grasped, and this frees you from grasping and suffering. You cannot find a real existence anywhere. And since no entity can be found, you cannot assert the non-existence of that entity either. The four extremes are transcended in the moment of realization.

You're the one who's been asserting "non-existence of that entity", not me. You're the one who said that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality". I am the one who has been insisting in not getting caught up in the "extremes" of belief in either existence or non-existence.

 

The "view of inherency" is just one of many views that needs to be surrendered, in order to be "liberated". And that surrender has to happen all the time, ongoing. But because you have declared yourself liberated, therefore you are unwilling to doubt your own conclusions, surrender your certainty, or see the contradictions in what you're writing. Because you insist that you "see the true nature of reality", there is no room for subtlety, no room for discussion.

 

Again, I am not railing against (what I hear as) the central tenets of Buddhism. I am railing against certainty, and this pretense that any specific "realization" = liberation. In my view, liberation only comes, in every moment, by continually surrendering my certainty. If I am unwilling to live in that emptiness, then it doesn't matter how Buddhist my views are, or where my conclusions came from; I still live in the trap of my own grasping need to be right, which is the definition of certainty. Certainty is delusion, and emptiness is letting go of certainty.

[forestofemptiness]

I've always found it helpful that experienced teachers often refer to anatta as "not self" (Thanissaro) or "no self as thing" (Shinzen Young). I heard a teacher the other day describe it as "nothing belongs to me".

 

This is especially important in Buddhism because the SOLE purpose of Buddhism is to end suffering. Suffering comes from clinging/craving.

 

Pure no self is untenable, because here we are experiencing the world. However, what it is we are is the problem. Fixing on a series of thoughts or bodily experiences leads to further problems.

[Otis]

I am free from beliefs. The biggest and fundamental belief is 'is' and 'is not', of which I am freed.

Sorry, but I see this as utter B.S.

 

You've been insisting all along on seeing the "true nature of reality" and declaring that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality".

 

And yet, you are "free from beliefs". WTF?

 

This is something you have to work out for yourself, because obviously I can't change your mind. But I do think it's time to take a good long deep look in the mirror.

[Informer]

Very good guys

 

So far, we're in complete agreement. You are supporting what I was saying. "Vision of red", as you put it, (probably) does not exist in the actual world, but is merely part of the simulacrum, the interior model of the world. "Reality", as we commonly use it, does not refer to the actual (even though people act as if it does), but only refers to the subjective model. Delusion is mistaking my model of reality, for the actual thing.

 

 

Here's where we start to veer off from each other. The description for "senses" that you give seems perfectly okay to me, as long as we specify that we are talking about the internal phenomenological experience of senses, without preconception. In that case, I'll give it to you: senses are purely luminous.

 

However (and this is at the crux of our conversation), if you take that statement literally, and say that "the senses (literally are) purely luminous", then you're mistaking a subjective experience for a description of actual reality.

 

As far as I can tell, Buddha was writing for egos, not for enlightened people. Since he knew that old beliefs needed to be replaced by new beliefs (until the believer was truly ready to surrender those beliefs) he taught beliefs that shifted the egos' perspectives, so that they could surrender the certainty of their earlier beliefs in "self", "inherent existence", etc. That does not literally mean that there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence". It just means that these beliefs are closer to surrender of the importance of the interior model, than the mundane beliefs that preceded them (which were the very building material of that model). But Buddha was very clear to also include the middle way in his teachings, so that no one would attach literalism and fundamentalism to his words.

 

I believe that if the Buddha lived today, he would speak in terms that included modern science, because science takes emptiness as its central credo, as well. But his words reflected the time and place that he lived in, because that was who he was trying to communicate with. Thus "no self" was a surer way of waking people up from the illusion of self, then was an explanation that referenced neurons.

 

 

I agree that the belief in a "findable, independent, unchanging existence" is a delusion, and that emptiness is not that. But belief in a spaghetti monster who created the world in seven days is also delusion, and emptiness is also the lack of that. Emptiness is not just the negation of a specific worldview, it is the letting go of the importance of whatever worldview I have.

 

As soon as you assert what the world is or is not, what existence is or is not, then you are in the realm of belief. Because none of that is available from the subjective perspective, which sees only its own interior model (the beliefs/habits). The actual world must always be inferred, rather than observed, because we only have our singular organism perspective from which to observe, never an omniscient view. Surrendering the importance of the interior model is exactly what emptiness is.

 

 

Whatever conclusion you arrive at, whether from "contemplation and direct seeing" or from wild guessing, is delusion. Once it is a conclusion, it is delusion, because it is trying to force reality into your conceptual box.

 

"A quantum shift of perception" does not necessarily liberate, because it could be a shift into even greater delusion (e.g. the spaghetti monster). So no matter what your "contemplation and direct seeing" arrive at, there is no way to be sure that you are not in delusion, except to empty your need to be right. No matter what views I have, if I don't grasp them too tightly, then I am not trapped by them. And no matter how "right" my views are, if I grasp them tightly as "truth", then I am trapped. This is what delusion means. Emptiness is the opposite of that: letting go of the grasping need to be right.

 

 

You're the one who's been asserting "non-existence of that entity", not me. You're the one who said that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality". I am the one who has been insisting in not getting caught up in the "extremes" of belief in either existence or non-existence.

 

The "view of inherency" is just one of many views that needs to be surrendered, in order to be "liberated". And that surrender has to happen all the time, ongoing. But because you have declared yourself liberated, therefore you are unwilling to doubt your own conclusions, surrender your certainty, or see the contradictions in what you're writing. Because you insist that you "see the true nature of reality", there is no room for subtlety, no room for discussion.

 

Again, I am not railing against (what I hear as) the central tenets of Buddhism. I am railing against certainty, and this pretense that any specific "realization" = liberation. In my view, liberation only comes, in every moment, by continually surrendering my certainty. If I am unwilling to live in that emptiness, then it doesn't matter how Buddhist my views are, or where my conclusions came from; I still live in the trap of my own grasping need to be right, which is the definition of certainty. Certainty is delusion, and emptiness is letting go of certainty.

 

Seems you have articulated this very well, this outlook coincides with my own.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Just going to throw in here that, from my perspective, perceiving that everything is non-existent and Empty is the same as perceiving that they are full of Tao, that God is in everything. Our bodies appear to be bodies, but really they come from Tao, they come from God, they come from the Emptiness. 3 different but, effectively, identical epiphanies

[xabir2005]

So far, we're in complete agreement. You are supporting what I was saying. "Vision of red", as you put it, (probably) does not exist in the actual world, but is merely part of the simulacrum, the interior model of the world. "Reality", as we commonly use it, does not refer to the actual (even though people act as if it does), but only refers to the subjective model. Delusion is mistaking my model of reality, for the actual thing.

No, my whole point is that there is no 'actual thing'. Since things are empty, there is no thing-ness of things.

 

Here's where we start to veer off from each other. The description for "senses" that you give seems perfectly okay to me, as long as we specify that we are talking about the internal phenomenological experience of senses, without preconception. In that case, I'll give it to you: senses are purely luminous.

Purely luminous simply means the lucid, alive, vivid, clear, intelligent, knowing, revealing/illuminating quality of experience or mind

 

However (and this is at the crux of our conversation), if you take that statement literally, and say that "the senses (literally are) purely luminous", then you're mistaking a subjective experience for a description of actual reality.

No such things as "actual reality"

 

As far as I can tell, Buddha was writing for egos, not for enlightened people. Since he knew that old beliefs needed to be replaced by new beliefs (until the believer was truly ready to surrender those beliefs) he taught beliefs that shifted the egos' perspectives, so that they could surrender the certainty of their earlier beliefs in "self", "inherent existence", etc. That does not literally mean that there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence".

there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence"

 

Only five aggregates, processes, dependent origination and hence empty. In investigating the five skandhas no self could be found inside or outside, just like no weather-ness of the weather process can be found.

 

Further, what is relatively dependent arisen is ultimately empty. You have to see this very clearly.

 

I agree that the belief in a "findable, independent, unchanging existence" is a delusion, and that emptiness is not that. But belief in a spaghetti monster who created the world in seven days is also delusion, and emptiness is also the lack of that. Emptiness is not just the negation of a specific worldview, it is the letting go of the importance of whatever worldview I have.

Once you let go of inherent existence, you are liberated.

 

As soon as you assert what the world is or is not, what existence is or is not, then you are in the realm of belief. Because none of that is available from the subjective perspective, which sees only its own interior model (the beliefs/habits). The actual world must always be inferred, rather than observed, because we only have our singular organism perspective from which to observe, never an omniscient view. Surrendering the importance of the interior model is exactly what emptiness is.

No, it has to be a realization - no agent, no self, and the emptiness of phenomena via dependent origination.

 

This realization basically ends all views.

 

It also ends the view that there is an "actual world out there".

 

"A quantum shift of perception" does not necessarily liberate, because it could be a shift into even greater delusion (e.g. the spaghetti monster). So no matter what your "contemplation and direct seeing" arrive at, there is no way to be sure that you are not in delusion, except to empty your need to be right.

Like I explained, I do not trade one belief over another. The realization of emptiness ends all views.

 

Emptiness is the opposite of that: letting go of the grasping need to be right.

Emptiness， being the nature of everything, can only be realized.

[xabir2005]

You're the one who's been asserting "non-existence of that entity", not me.

Unfindability of an essence or independent entity, in what is dependently originated.

 

The extremes of existence and non-existence can only be predicated upon an existent, locatable, independent entity.

 

The "view of inherency" is just one of many views that needs to be surrendered, in order to be "liberated". And that surrender has to happen all the time, ongoing.

This is not the permanent freedom from views that realization of emptiness results in。

 

Again, I am not railing against (what I hear as) the central tenets of Buddhism. I am railing against certainty, and this pretense that any specific "realization" = liberation. In my view, liberation only comes, in every moment, by continually surrendering my certainty.

This is not true.

[xabir2005]

Sorry, but I see this as utter B.S.

 

You've been insisting all along on seeing the "true nature of reality" and declaring that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality".

 

And yet, you are "free from beliefs". WTF?

 

This is something you have to work out for yourself, because obviously I can't change your mind. But I do think it's time to take a good long deep look in the mirror.

It has to be directly seen and realized. This is not a belief. Like you're in a dream of monsters, I ask you to investigate whether the monster is real and suddenly you wake up. Free from the dream... without adding another one.

[Marblehead]

It has to be directly seen and realized. This is not a belief. Like you're in a dream of monsters, I ask you to investigate whether the monster is real and suddenly you wake up. Free from the dream... without adding another one.

 

But my dear Xabir, if it has to be directly seen and realized what of those who do not see it nor realize it? You can't say in all honesty that all those who do not see and realize are blind of sight and understanding. They just don't believe it. Therefore it is a belief system that is incompatible with many other belief systems.

 

Your emptiness is my fullness. We will never overcome this impass. I don't have any more monsters. I killed them all. Don't even recall most of my dreams.

 

Things exist. You exist. You talk a lot about Buddhism. That's fine. It is your belief system. But that is all it is - a belief system. Just as my belief system is Taoism. They both are real to us.

 

As long as you continue to type on the keyboard linked to this board no one is ever going to believe that you do not exist.

 

The truth is that nothing exists permanently and independently. The Buddha existed for a while and shared his insight with others. But now his body no longer exists.

 

One day you and I will no longer exist. But while we are here we should dance now and again. Smell the roses because they exist too. Watch the butterflies - they too exist.

 

Take good care of your 'self' and be well.

[Otis]

It has to be directly seen and realized. This is not a belief. Like you're in a dream of monsters, I ask you to investigate whether the monster is real and suddenly you wake up. Free from the dream... without adding another one.

Do you not realize how circular your arguments are?

 

To establish that you do indeed see "the true nature of things", you need to be able to measure your view against the true nature of things. But of course, you need somehow to have access to that true nature, in order to do the measuring. A circle. In other words, you make yourself into the authority, which establishes your authority. You're a loop, pretending to be a sage.

 

And how do you expect me to believe that your view is no view at all, that your beliefs that you see the "true nature of reality" is not a belief at all? "I have no beliefs" is itself, a belief.

 

What you are describing is the worst kind of delusion. It is the delusion of someone who is so damn certain, that they are not even willing to admit that their beliefs are beliefs. You have left no room for you to be wrong, because you have no beliefs to be wrong, only direct insight into reality.

 

What do you see when you open your eyes. The actual world? No, because your eyes are only receptors for light, and what you see is entirely the construct in your visual cortex. You only see your model. This is built into the human species; we are beings that interact with our own simulacra. The question is whether we mistake this simulacra, for the actual world. Of course, that is the very definition of delusion, and you are parading it proudly.

 

Or no, there is no "actual world"? Well, that doesn't seem to be a very practical way of looking at it. You can insist all day that there is no "truckness" behind the truck, but the truck will still run you over. That's what existence is, the thing that conforms to physics, rather than to your philosophy. All I can say is: better look both ways, just in case.

[Aaron]

This is what I'm beginning to understand. Anything I say about Buddha nature, heartmind, no self, etc. is pointless, because without having directly experienced it, I can't expect someone else to understand the nature of it. Those who know the truth don't speak, those who speak don't know. What I'm hearing is a lot of people speaking, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate in any way that they actually know what they are speaking about. I see a lot of people regurgitating what they find in books, but I've yet to see anything relating to an actual authentic experience.

 

My opinion is that these experiences can't be put in words, the words that are shared only seem to help stroke the ego self and allow the person sharing them to feel as if they have somehow been liberated and thus are beyond "mere mortals".

 

The moment you feel you're special is the moment you know you haven't gotten it, in fact you are so far off base, you should start over from scratch. I don't expect many people to actually respond to this, since it throws a bit of water on the whole party, but I think it needed to be said.

 

As for me, I'm done arguing about something that can't be argued about. If you want to know what it's about then practice it, but in all honesty, most of the things people are asking can't really be answered.

 

I mean honestly, there's no way to really describe no-self. I keep trying to come up with the right answer and realize it's all a bunch of hot air.

 

Aaron