'No self' my experience so far...

[goldisheavy]

 

It is not just substance of wood that is construed, but the substance of an "I" who is looking at wood. You included it in your example, "Aha, I am looking at wood." I think this is another viewpoint that "in seeing, just the seen" can loosen, and I think that this is the main reason that Xabir refers to it. The negative aspect of this is that such an absence can be reified.

 

I enjoyed your pointing out the other aspects of the phrase.

 

I agree. Thank you for bringing it up.

[Lucky7Strikes]

actually I have given analysis and reasonings. I have quoted chandrakirti.. There is an article on the sevenfold reasonings of selflessness, its a good read. http://awakeningtore...nquiry.html?m=0

 

This article is also good: http://awakeningtore...irk%20Mosig?m=0

.....I think you just affirmed the contents of my post here. .

 

There is a limit to reasonings and explanation though. They can lead to an intellectual conviction, but doesn't lead one to the actual non conceptual, non inferential direct seeing.

 

Like asking, why is mind luminous? Why is mind empty? Why is phenomena impermanent? Why does grasping and craving result in suffering?

 

This is obviously the nature of all experiences... And this is simply seen to be so, no 'why'.

 

Just like when you realize I AM, you don't say I AM because... Or when you realize non dual, you don't say, I infer that consciousness should be non dual because....rather It is simply seen to be so, the nature of consciousness. These are just some plain obvious facts about the nature of mind that can be discovered through an experiential investigation.

 

But when explaining of course, some reasonings and analysis can be offered or discuss, but they only reach so far.

Intellectual conviction leads to certain non-conceptual experiences and also the other way around. "Experiential investigation" is just deeper and more sincere inquiry than playing with concepts. There are various modes of non-conceptual experiences and they are interpreted in varying ways according to reason and inquiry.

 

What is glaringly missing from your posts are anecdotes of personal investigation. You often substitute other people's inquiry to justify your points. It's not really a matter of "why" but "how." As in "how" did you come to decide that your view is indeed a valid realization rather than reverting to faith in someone else's teaching?

 

Also it is not "obvious." That's not really a good way to engage in discussions. It's a dismissive attitude. Maybe you should try to answer the questions you posted:

 

"why is mind luminous? Why is mind empty? Why is phenomena impermanent? Why does grasping and craving result in suffering?"

 

Imagine you are sitting across a materialist scientist. Are you going to quote him Buddhist scriptures to prove your view of the world is more legitimate than his? He will produce much more evidence before you to show that you are psychologically deluded and is just another religious fundamentalist, while all you can do, from my judgment, is give him quotes from a Buddhist practitioner a thousand years ago or tell him it's just the way you experience things...

[xabir2005]

My god, Xabir. You are so trapped in your own view. You claim that my insights are wrong. Yet, guess what? My insights are the truth of what you claim to have realized -- "emptiness is form." You are ignorant even of the truth you claim to know. You have not seen what emptiness is form is pointing to. You are still ignorant of it. Every response you type up is the same thing. Same quotes, same repetitive words. You have gone far, but not far enough.

 

I knew you would claim that I'm being a substantialist. When I alk about "this", it is talking about YOU. For gods sake, man. You can't even see your own nose in front of your face. YOU are the most undeniable fact that there is. Seeing, hearing, smelling, thinking. These are undeniable. But these facts are beyond and before concepts."The eternal now" is referring to presence, being. It is before ANY description -- including d.o. Whatever you want to call it. It's just a fact. To me, right now, you don't understand much. You don't understand

 

1.) The nature of the self. This is the most important thing.

 

2.) How attachment to the content of any thought is what creates the self.

 

3.) Time as attachment to concepts in relation to the timeless as beyond attachment to concepts.

 

4.) The nature of suffering as attachment to concepts. Which creates time, becoming, suffering, division, comparison. Fear, anxiety, stress, etc.

 

5.) "rebirth" as #4 above

 

6.) And most embarassing, is that you don't even understand d.o. The very "truth" that you incessantly preach here. You don't get that it is NOT truth, it is NOT how things are. It is NOT a fact. It is skillful means that lead you beyond it. Again, JUST skillful means. And how don't get how d.o. leads to seeing 1-5 above.

I didn't say you are a substantialist. What I state however, is that you have a lack of clarity about the impact of views (and how all attachments including attachments to concepts are merely a manifestation of views), the impact of realization and the distinction between true insight and mere non conceptual experience.

 

You say "You" but "you" has no reality. Its better to say "just seeing, just hearing"... Of course even that is conventions and seeing and hearing too is empty.

 

D.O. Is relative truth. What arises relatively is ultimately empty, thus d.o. Is not ultimately established.

[Otis]

when you're walking along a street and the street appears to you, it's not "out there". It's in your mind. You're walking in your own mind and seeing the street in your own mind. Apart from your own mind, there is no street to be seen and nowhere to walk.

Excellent post.

[xabir2005]

.....I think you just affirmed the contents of my post here. .

 

 

Intellectual conviction leads to certain non-conceptual experiences and also the other way around. "Experiential investigation" is just deeper and more sincere inquiry than playing with concepts. There are various modes of non-conceptual experiences and they are interpreted in varying ways according to reason and inquiry.

 

What is glaringly missing from your posts are anecdotes of personal investigation. You often substitute other people's inquiry to justify your points. It's not really a matter of "why" but "how." As in "how" did you come to decide that your view is indeed a valid realization rather than reverting to faith in someone else's teaching?

 

Also it is not "obvious." That's not really a good way to engage in discussions. It's a dismissive attitude. Maybe you should try to answer the questions you posted:

 

"why is mind luminous? Why is mind empty? Why is phenomena impermanent? Why does grasping and craving result in suffering?"

 

Imagine you are sitting across a materialist scientist. Are you going to quote him Buddhist scriptures to prove your view of the world is more legitimate than his? He will produce much more evidence before you to show that you are psychologically deluded and is just another religious fundamentalist, while all you can do, from my judgment, is give him quotes from a Buddhist practitioner a thousand years ago or tell him it's just the way you experience things...

actually the method of contemplation is simple and I have shared it before. the contemplation that led to anatta insight for me is contemplating on bahiya sutta. Basically I investigate on a bare sensate level how in the sensation there is simply that self-luminous sensation, so any sense of a subject or an awareness being other than the sensations as they are is seen through as an extra and baseless concept or view. Even that sense of space, etc, are simply more sensations aware where it is like any sensations. Because in seeing just the seen, there is no you in terms of that, in here, over there or in between, and this realized is what Buddha said is the "end of suffering". The details of my investigation findings I have written in the article: http://awakeningtore...-sutta.html?m=1

 

Just as ruthlesstruth investigation is also simple: there is no you (investigate that and see if it is true)... Self inquiry that leads to I AM is just a quaestion "who am I?"

 

I have discussed these many times but perhaps because of its simplicity it has been overlooked... But these may not make very much sense until one really investigates and sees it for themselves.

 

P.s. The method is simple but the realization does not necessarily come easy. There must be an earnest, sincere, investigation on one's part before this is seen.

[Lucky7Strikes]

actually the method of contemplation is simple and I have shared it before. the contemplation that led to anatta insight for me is contemplating on bahiya sutta. Basically I investigate on a bare sensate level how in the sensation there is simply that self-luminous sensation, so any sense of a subject or an awareness being other than the sensations as they are is seen through as an extra and baseless concept or view. Even that sense of space, etc, are simply more sensations aware where it is like any sensations. Because in seeing just the seen, there is no you in terms of that, in here, over there or in between, and this realized is what Buddha said is the "end of suffering". The details of my investigation findings I have written in the article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html?m=1

Contemplation, ime, is anything but simple. You are not contemplating the bahiya sutta the way you did there, but indoctrinating yourself to it. There is a problem with this inquiry in that you are assuming that those sensations are inherent in their processes and not affected by the way you choose to perceive them. You are establishing a certain objective process and wrongly attributing awareness to them as if your senses "own" awareness in themselves, or inseparable.

 

The very error arises when you say to yourself, as you wrote, "I will investigate what is in those sensations." You have already established a subject/object duality of thinking sensations as true or different from perceiving.

 

Just as ruthlesstruth investigation is also simple: there is no you (investigate that and see if it is true)... Self inquiry that leads to I AM is just a quaestion "who am I?"

"Who am I?" used in that manner can only let one glimpse the I AM realization. That question simply makes you wrongly search for an I as if it were a thing, which is an incorrect approach in the first place. The better question of reaching I AM is rather "how do we know? What is knowing/awareness/consciousness?" and "what is the most basic fact we can know?"

 

The I AM understanding does not merely connote a sense of or some experience of certainty of being, but a comprehension through inquiry into the nature of awareness, whether it can feasibly belong to something, arise from something, findable, etc. So before you inquire, to inquire into your way of inquiring itself, to sort through hidden assumptions before coming to a conclusion.

[xabir2005]

My god, Xabir. You are so trapped in your own view. You claim that my insights are wrong. Yet, guess what? My insights are the truth of what you claim to have realized -- "emptiness is form." You are ignorant even of the truth you claim to know. You have not seen what emptiness is form is pointing to. You are still ignorant of it. Every response you type up is the same thing. Same quotes, same repetitive words. You have gone far, but not far enough.

 

I knew you would claim that I'm being a substantialist. When I alk about "this", it is talking about YOU. For gods sake, man. You can't even see your own nose in front of your face. YOU are the most undeniable fact that there is. Seeing, hearing, smelling, thinking. These are undeniable. But these facts are beyond and before concepts."The eternal now" is referring to presence, being. It is before ANY description -- including d.o. Whatever you want to call it. It's just a fact. To me, right now, you don't understand much. You don't understand

 

1.) The nature of the self. This is the most important thing.

 

2.) How attachment to the content of any thought is what creates the self.

 

3.) Time as attachment to concepts in relation to the timeless as beyond attachment to concepts.

 

4.) The nature of suffering as attachment to concepts. Which creates time, becoming, suffering, division, comparison. Fear, anxiety, stress, etc.

 

5.) "rebirth" as #4 above

 

6.) And most embarassing, is that you don't even understand d.o. The very "truth" that you incessantly preach here. You don't get that it is NOT truth, it is NOT how things are. It is NOT a fact. It is skillful means that lead you beyond it. Again, JUST skillful means. And how don't get how d.o. leads to seeing 1-5 above.

by the way I insist there is no eternal now.

 

As I wrote in january:

 

Presence is empty. Not formless... I mean, it cannot be located, it cannot be found, it cannot be pinned down.... there is no 'The Presence'!

 

Though this has been said so many times... somehow I overlooked its significance... somehow, unknowingly, a subtle seeking for Presence is occuring... why? Due to the idea that there is a 'Presence' here, somewhere... be it 'Hereness', 'Nowness', etc... somehow it is there, and I must return to 'It'. And this becomes a subtle object of seeking.... seeking for something that is by nature empty, cannot be found. Even though it is often said, what you already are cannot be found by searching.... due to the tendency to see something inherent, a Self, a Hereness, a Nowness, an Awareness... a subtle searching is always going on. A subtle seeking... clinging... looking for something that is thought to be there...

 

Yet... now it is seen, there is no source... no 'Awareness'.... yet awareness is utterly present.... AS mirage, apparitional appearances. Utterly present, vivid, yet utterly unlocatable. Let go of all grasping for Presence... for a Source... for anything at all! It cannot be found....

 

And in this dropping of the subtle contrived effort and seeking, every appearance is spontaneously accomplished, perfected, present and empty. Just the appearance alone is.... no core, essence, source, awareness, etc etc.. (nothing findable and locatable and inherent)

 

And the subtle efforting and seeking is replaced by spontaneity, naturalness, interdependent origination...

 

So now it becomes clearer, what Padmasambhava said:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"

Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.

(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

 

And the third karmapa said:

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/vow.html

 

It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.

[xabir2005]

[Birch]

what you described is not anatta.

 

There is not "being", only "becoming". Just as wind is only blowing.

 

Your sense of self is due to the view of inherency.

 

As for brahman: it is an inherent true self.

 

Buddhism rejects the notion of a true existent.

Oh. Ok. I was afraid this morning that the buddhists had finally got me.

Like I said, i've had experiences but apparently they're not the right ones relative to certain people's systems. Since I've been on these boards I've heard varying versions of "not good enough" or "inherently flawed" permeating much of the discussions. I was thinking about this yesterday and wondering who are these people who are taking liberties and judging the quality of other people's experiences and then passing it off as gospel? I suppose its my fault for sharing (again) some of my experiences. I'm doing it out of interest because it's pretty rare to get to discuss some of this stuff and not because i want some buddhist approval.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

My current experience of 'no self' is that beyond the silly stories and thoughts "about" myself there's still a 'being' which in its relationship with everything else forms a unique expression of, well, itself and everything else:-) So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.

 

Brahman means Ultimate Truth that Self exists, basically.

 

 

As far as the religion goes, it's really just a psychological path that utilizes the body with a body of methods and a group of mental tricks that helps the mind free itself. It doesn't have to be a religion, but that does help plenty of people to have an organization that helps carry and evolve the teachings ran by enlightened individuals that are passing on the legacy that the Buddha left, expressing it in new and exciting ways.

[xabir2005]

Oh. Ok. I was afraid this morning that the buddhists had finally got me.

Like I said, i've had experiences but apparently they're not the right ones relative to certain people's systems. Since I've been on these boards I've heard varying versions of "not good enough" or "inherently flawed" permeating much of the discussions. I was thinking about this yesterday and wondering who are these people who are taking liberties and judging the quality of other people's experiences and then passing it off as gospel? I suppose its my fault for sharing (again) some of my experiences. I'm doing it out of interest because it's pretty rare to get to discuss some of this stuff and not because i want some buddhist approval.

there are many degrees of no self. What you said sounds like an experience of impersonality. I wrote this in may in dho:

 

I was trained in this 3 aspects:

 

1. The experience

2. The realization

3. and the View

 

I will start with 'experience'. There are different experiences in relation to 'no self':

 

1. Impersonality.

 

This is the case when practitioners experienced that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic.

 

There is also a very important realization - the realization of Pure Presence or Consciousness or Beingness or Existence as being one's true identity. There is an irrefutable undeniable insight into the luminous essence of mind. Actually self-realization is not related to impersonality in the sense that impersonality can be experienced with or without self-realization, however a self-realized person would progress his experience in terms of impersonality. Nevertheless dualistic tendencies are strong and awareness is seen as an eternal witnessing presence, a pure formless perceiving subject. A true experience is being distorted by the mind's tendency at projecting duality and inherency (to things, self, awareness, etc)

 

2. Non-dual into One Mind.

 

Where subject and object division collapsed into a single seamless experience of one Naked Awareness.

 

3. No-Mind

 

Where even the naked Awareness is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent.

 

4. Sunyata

 

My experience here is still at the beginning phase. It is when the 'self' is completely transcended into dependent originated activity. The play of dharma.

 

Next is the 'Realization'. Having an experience of witnessing, or a state of pure presence, is not the same as having attained self-realization - in that case the practitioner can be said to have an experience, but not insight/realization. Having an experience is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation.

 

Hence having non-dual samadhis are *not* enlightenment... why? The realization that there never was separation to begin with, hasn't arisen. Therefore you can only have temporary glimpses and experiences of non-dual... where the latent dualistic tendencies continue to surface... and not have seamless, effortless seeing.

 

And even after seeing through this separation, you may have the realization of non-dual but still fall into substantial non-duality, or One Mind. Why? This is because though we have overcome the bond of duality, our view of reality is still seeing it as 'inherent'. Our view or framework has it that reality must have an inherent essence or substance to it, something permanent, independent, ultimate. So though everything is experienced without separation, the mind still can't overcome the idea of a source. The mind kept coming back to a 'source' and is unable to break-through and find the constant need to rest in an ultimate reality in which everything is a part of... a Mind, an Awareness, a Self.... what this results is a subtle tendency to cling, to sink back to a ground, a source, and so transience cannot be fully appreciated for what it is. It is an important phase however, as for the first time phenomena are no longer seen as 'happening IN Awareness' but 'happening AS Awareness' – Awareness is its object of perception, Awareness is expressing itself as every moment of manifest perception.

 

However, there is still a constant referencing back to the One Awareness. Until you see that the idea itself is merely a thought, and everything is merely thoughts, sights, sounds, disjoint, disperse, insubstantial. There, a change of view takes place... experience remains non-dual but without the view of 'everything is inside me/everything is an expression of ME' but 'there is just thoughts, sight, sound, taste' – just manifestation. At this point you realize no self in the sense of Anatta – just sight, sound, thoughts, with no one behind or linking them. After anatta, you can then proceed to experience and realize how every experience, every manifestation is the interaction of the entire universe... the total exertion of the universe, the totality of causes and conditions, gives rise to this moment of manifestation.

 

p.s. described more in my e-journal/e-book, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

[Marblehead]

Since I've been on these boards I've heard varying versions of "not good enough" or "inherently flawed" permeating much of the discussions.

 

I sure hope you have never heard anything like that from me!

[Marblehead]

Establish means to reify an existence.

 

Are you sure you meant to say that the way you did?

[suninmyeyes]

Oh. Ok. I was afraid this morning that the buddhists had finally got me.

Like I said, i've had experiences but apparently they're not the right ones relative to certain people's systems. Since I've been on these boards I've heard varying versions of "not good enough" or "inherently flawed" permeating much of the discussions. I was thinking about this yesterday and wondering who are these people who are taking liberties and judging the quality of other people's experiences and then passing it off as gospel? I suppose its my fault for sharing (again) some of my experiences. I'm doing it out of interest because it's pretty rare to get to discuss some of this stuff and not because i want some buddhist approval.

I was just reading this thread a little bit and thought oh -K- is posting how cool and refreshing,lets see what she is expiriencing.

So thanks for sharing.That is what I like about bums that people are very free thinking here and there is a lot of diversity from which is possible to learn.Unless and until we all get Buddhanised.

Back to observers sit.

[Marblehead]

Unless and until we all get Buddhanised.

 

That ain't gonna' never freakin' happen.

 

Back to "those who know do not speak".

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am not establishing an object.

 

Establish means to reify an existence.

 

Since a process is not something solid, it is not being reified.

 

Instead it is the notion of a subjective agent that is being deconstructed - the sense of a perceiver, awareness, one mind.

 

This is silly. This is like trying to hammer the hammer you are hammering with.

 

There is no subject, no object. The mindstream that dependently originates is self-luminous without agent or knower and is empty of a subject or an object.

You are missing the fact that there is no subject or object pole to empty out. That very way of approaching reality is flawed like trying to measure the degrees in a circle through squares.

 

Seeing is the seen does not mean one establishes something seen, but neither does one establish a seer. So there is simply the suchness of seen, heard, cognized, without subject or object reification. See kalaka sutta.

All this isn't really a reply to my post, but a re affirmation of your views in the same language you seem only capable of doing. It's a head scratcher by this point how you are incapable of having a discussion outside of your lingo. We were discussing your way of inquiring, as in how you came to the conclusions you have, and the only thing you can do is quote a passage from a sutta. This doesn't indicate inquiry, but scripture dogma, not unlike any blind belief to tweak your views accordingly. You can't seem to explain your inquiry otherwise.

 

Stop quoting sutras! And the same passage over and over, as if you are Bahiya himself. I can quote passages from the Avatamsaka that says the mind the the painter of reality, the world is in the mind, the Lankavatara says all this arise from universal mind (not to speak of more eternalist sounding Nirvana sutta) and Lonchenpa and Padmasambhava say all arises in the mind's illusion, the Shurangama sutta likewise says all phenomena is in the treasury of the Buddha's clear mind, certain Dzogchen points to pure consciousness, the Bodhidharma texts declare all things come from the mind, on and on just from the top of my head. And by hand picking quotes to your taste you give off the air on thetaobums as if your word is the one and only dharma.

 

The path you are on is directed towards cessation, arhatship, but imo is not the path of Bodhisattvas who have mastered the illusions of mind. Your view will eventually empty out all dhammas.

 

In traditional alchemy there are two stages, one of dismantling and the other of reconstructing. Just dismantling is only a stage in the path to purify all the unnecessary clusters made from confusion. To become attached to mere dismantling by hammering things apart, one should comprehend how and why it is constructed in such a manner. Arhatship is just a path of purifying attachment but does not point to insight into the nature of the construction. Becoming a master alchemist is to become knowledgeable of both ways of the craft so you become a master of your own existence as well as attain skillful means to heal other messed up bodies.

[Lucky7Strikes]

there are many degrees of no self. What you said sounds like an experience of impersonality. I wrote this in may in dho:

 

I was trained in this 3 aspects...

This is not your language, but Thusness's. You are parroting.

 

To point out a few problems with this post:

 

1) The pure consciousness/beingness as you speak of is not necessarily "as if a higher being is being lived through you."

 

2) Non-duality is not necessarily subject/object merging as you prescribe.

 

3) Coming back to a source is not One Mind or awareness.

 

You are prescribing problems in the path that is personal and that does not apply to every seeker. The danger in this is that people might come to misunderstand their views according to your problems instead of developing their own insights. I personally do not believe you actually encountered truly any of the Presence/One Mind/or whatever "error" you write about because you had already made yourself believe that those were errors. Instead you just pretend; a finish line has already been set up.

 

Moreover, people who come across your posts like this will mistakenly believe that those insights were attained through your own inquiry, but this is not the case. The case is you had already indoctrinated yourself to Thusness's path and language even before practicing or understanding what they meant by fully encountering those realizations.

 

Hence all your understandings are lacking in their originality. You didn't arrive at them but more or less brainwashed yourself to them. So you can only explain youself within a very narrow frame or words and examples. You are spreading poison by imposing this on others as if this was what the Buddha taught.

 

This is difficult for others on this board to see who come across your stuff as if they were fresh. But as someone who has engaged in sincere dialogue with you in the past years, a lot of your faults are revealing. The way you engage people on the bums is also incredibly close minded and has an element of proselytism (yes, I remember the part where Thusness told you to acquire virtue by doing this). I noticed your posts on dharmawheel has a completely different attitude to them.

[Lucky7Strikes]

by the way I insist there is no eternal now.

 

As I wrote in january:

 

Presence is empty. Not formless... I mean, it cannot be located, it cannot be found, it cannot be pinned down.... there is no 'The Presence'!

 

Though this has been said so many times... somehow I overlooked its significance... somehow, unknowingly, a subtle seeking for Presence is occuring... why? Due to the idea that there is a 'Presence' here, somewhere... be it 'Hereness', 'Nowness', etc... somehow it is there, and I must return to 'It'. And this becomes a subtle object of seeking.... seeking for something that is by nature empty, cannot be found. Even though it is often said, what you already are cannot be found by searching.... due to the tendency to see something inherent, a Self, a Hereness, a Nowness, an Awareness... a subtle searching is always going on. A subtle seeking... clinging... looking for something that is thought to be there...

Ok, not to mention this is almost verbatim Thusness's words...

 

You made a leap in your inquiry here, this is precisely the error that I've been mentioning, like a man trying to look for his eyes, and not seeing his eyes, concludes, there is no eyes, that eyes are empty, or that the eyes are in the seeing, or that seeing is in the objects (which is close to what you are saying). Just because it cannot be found, does not mean it does not exist. You have to understand the very method of finding.

 

Yet... now it is seen, there is no source... no 'Awareness'.... yet awareness is utterly present.... AS mirage, apparitional appearances. Utterly present, vivid, yet utterly unlocatable. Let go of all grasping for Presence... for a Source... for anything at all! It cannot be found....

 

And in this dropping of the subtle contrived effort and seeking, every appearance is spontaneously accomplished, perfected, present and empty. Just the appearance alone is.... no core, essence, source, awareness, etc etc.. (nothing findable and locatable and inherent)

 

And the subtle efforting and seeking is replaced by spontaneity, naturalness, interdependent origination...

You've forced yourself to this realization. It is not authentic.

 

Exclamations of practitioners upon realization, especially in Zen, are all unique. I have a collection of thousands of songs of enlightenment and they each have their own character. But what I see above is word per word a copy of someone else's sentences ingrained into your mind.

 

So now it becomes clearer, what Padmasambhava said:

 

http://awakeningtore...eeing-with.html

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"

Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.

(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

 

And the third karmapa said:

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/vow.html

 

It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.

Why does Padmasambhava say that is is the source, origin, and Karmapa that is the basis?

 

Why not do they simply say, as you do, that the mind is a label placed on interdependent origination? Or that awareness is inherent to the universal process of dependent origination? Or that that mind is dependently originated from something else? Rather Karmapa says "limitless mind."

[JustARandomPanda]

I suppose its my fault for sharing (again) some of my experiences. I'm doing it out of interest because it's pretty rare to get to discuss some of this stuff and not because i want some buddhist approval.

 

LOL. Remember what I said in another thread?

 

First rule of Internet Posting: Anything you say can and will be used against you.

 

But just so you know...thanks for sharing your experiences even though it exposes your experiences and POV to criticism.

 

 

Back to "those who know do not speak".

 

But Marble...what about those of us who know they don't know but also don't speak?

[tragblack]

In traditional alchemy there are two stages, one of dismantling and the other of reconstructing. Just dismantling is only a stage in the path to purify all the unnecessary clusters made from confusion. To become attached to mere dismantling by hammering things apart, one should comprehend how and why it is constructed in such a manner. Arhatship is just a path of purifying attachment but does not point to insight into the nature of the construction. Becoming a master alchemist is to become knowledgeable of both ways of the craft so you become a master of your own existence as well as attain skillful means to heal other messed up bodies.

 

And here I was, trying to deconstruct and reconstruct at the same time... like trying to build the new building with the moldy rubble of the first just because I don't want to waste it.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Mind is the fact of knowing. There is no way to think and not know that you're thinking. People tend to associate the mind with a thing, like say, the brain, or the body, and they tend to locate the mind in the world as if it were a thing among things. Sometimes people completely reify the mind and claim that the mind is not just associated with a thing, but that it is a thing in its own right. Believing that the mind is a thing is a limiting belief. (ex: the mind is the brain) Believing that the mind is associated with any one thing is a limiting belief. (ex: the mind is associated with the brain) Failing to recognize the mind at all is also limiting, because if you ignore the fact of intentional knowing, you'll never be the master of knowing. You can't master that which you ignore. Hence mindfulness.

 

So for example, people pay attention to world appearances such as cars, tables, bodies, the sky and so on. They don't ignore these. Because of that, people acquire a limited amount of mastery related to the limited amount of non-ignoring that people engage in. That's why people know how to build cars, and when the pipes get clogged, people know how to unclog them, but only in a mechanical and non-magical manner which is always consistent with the suggestions inherent in worldly appearances. "This is why a car mechanic cannot wave a feather to fix the car."

 

But people pay attention in a limited way because people are lead astray by the suggestions inherent in appearances. So by paying attention to worldly appearances in a worldly manner people somewhat ignore their own minds. By viewing their own minds through the lens of 10,000 misconceptions regarding their own minds people somewhat ignore the truth of their own minds. So worldly paying attention is a kind of ignorance.

 

When you pay attention to the truth of your own mind you have a heavenly attention instead of a worldly one. Heavenly attention is also a kind of ignorance because it somewhat ignores the suggestions inherent in appearances. Heavenly attention grants one power over the process of knowing, and thus, over all appearances, but this power is limited because it doesn't include all the modalities of worldly ignorance into its sphere.

 

You can pick and choose your own limitations. So in a sense you're not limited because limitations are intentional and temporary.

So it is, that Harry Potter stories and ancient myths are pondered and bantered about intellectually, but no work is being done to resolve the inconsistencies and bring forth a functional working process.. the reciting of sutras or the mind-numbing Buddhist attachment to barren dogma, yields NO "feather waving mechanics".. it has, for centuries, trapped people in pointless beliefs.. a single focused reading of Buddha's story is sufficient to propel the sincere seeker on a journey of self-realizing, a journey with no destination.. Buddhism is scenery along the way, and Tao is the background against which the scenery is experienced.. more importantly, there is a 'you', and a 'me', and a 'we/us/Life' exploring this process independently AND together.. understanding the unification of experience releases dependency on dogma..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

But Marble...what about those of us who know they don't know but also don't speak?

 

Hehehe. I have a friend on another forum, he considers himself a Pantheist, who is like that. Rarely speaks but even when he does he admits that he really doesn't know.

 

But you question is valid so I will say something to it.

 

If we know we don't know and remain silent I wonder how many of our questions will go unanswered. Nothing wrong with asking questions. Nothing wrong with saying, "This is my understanding."

 

What is wrong more often than not is insisting that we know the absolute truth and no matter what anyone else say doesn't matter and even though we may be listening we never consider what has been said.

 

So there is nothinhg wrong with speaking about one's understanding as long as we remain open to and consider responses to what we say.

 

But if we put our personal life on the streets, well, like you said. Hehehe.

 

I will openly admit that I have gained much while I have been here. Most often it isn't just one person involved but the gain comes later after the thoughts have found their new home.

[Marblehead]

... more importantly, there is a 'you', and a 'me', and a 'we/us/Life' exploring this process independently AND together.. understanding the unification of experience releases dependency on dogma..

 

Be well..

 

Really!

 

I am often tempted to speak more about independence, free will, and freedom of choice But fear that I will scare too many people into a reality they are not ready to handle.

 

Independence requires virtue. Yes, I will say the established virtue of the peace-loving peoples of the world. To suggest following the Virtue of Tao gets a little scarey because when we look around into nature we easily see that everything isn't a rose garden nor a pool party.

 

Independence requires tough decision-making. For some it might be better to follow the teachings of someone they hold in high regard.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Correct me if I'm wrong ( like I needed to say that) but there seems to be a lack of "middle path" here. Form is of Emptiness, Emptiness is in Form. People seem to be leaning to extremes on both sides of this, and denying the other. Yes, the ultimate nature of form is Emptiness, but form, coming from Emptiness, is also Emptiness, no? So saying that we exist or not, even our form is a manifestation of Emptiness. So saying that we do not exist, nil, nada, no-how, is not Buddhism, since Buddhism recognizes the one-ness of Form and Emptiness which is the "Middle Path."

 

I mistakenly used the terms "nihilism vs. eternalism" to say this earlier, but this is what I was getting to..

[paulno]

Been reading some Ruthless Truth blog and their book based off the blog, Brutal Beginnings. Man, these folks seem like a weird Amalgam of a Zen Master and Andrew Dice Clay. However, its intriguing and beyond thought provoking. I have tons of questions but am a little afraid at getting cursed out if I ask. LOL