'No self' my experience so far...

[stan herman]

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..

 

The question is the problem. 'Exist' and 'non-exist' are merely terms. The question is similar to asking whether light is a particle or a wave. Consider: In the Buddhist context, form and the 'idea of emptiness' both exist in maya. But when one talks in the context of the ordinary world, form is distinct and meaningful. Emptiness is merely a philosophical idea. When one talks in the context of the Diamond Sutra, form is merely "a manner of speaking", not truth.

 

So we both exist and don't exist. One must become comfortable with paradox, or it's hard to move.

[Marblehead]

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..

 

Okay. Being that I am a Taoist I suppost it is only right that I disagree with you. (Wrong and correct are not concepts I will use.

 

The Manifest is not empty. It is physical essence. It is real and full, not empty. The Manifest is 'born out of' Mystery. Mystery too is not empty. It is full potential. That is, potential that has not yet manifested.

 

Even Tao is not empty because Tao is All. That means Tao includes the Manifest and the Mystery, both of which are full of essence and potential.

 

The Buddhist concept of "emptiness" does not exist in Taoist Philosophy. There is, however, a concept of fullness. That is when a thing has reached its fullest potential.

 

Yes, I like the 'middle path'. I practice that in my everyday life. Enough but not too much and all the other associations. Lao Tzu called it the 'main path'. Same thing.

 

But you did good. Moderation in our thoughts, words and actions.

[Todd]

 

The Buddhist concept of "emptiness" does not exist in Taoist Philosophy. There is, however, a concept of fullness. That is when a thing has reached its fullest potential.

 

 

 

While it may be true that the "Buddhist" concept of emptiness does not exist in "Taoist Philosophy", the concept of emptiness does exist in the Daodejing.

 

Chapter 11

 

 

[xabir2005]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

I said before, and you didn't listen, that it is ok to say all is mind as long as mind is understood to be empty of an inherent self or subject. Effectively mind is only the experiencing... I.e. Mindstream. Not an experiencer. But for you, you are reifying a one mind and that is substantialist, hindu view.

 

And the sutta is what Buddha is reporting to experience, and Buddha is not a mere arhat. The Buddha did not establish anything, Nagarjuna and his proponents do not establish anything.

 

Also, the emptiness of self realization is arhat's realization, the emptiness of self plus objects is bodhisattva's realization - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/httpssites.html?m=1 . But no true bodhisattva will assert a true self. Through the twofold realization nothing is establiished. Nirvana sutra, like Namdrol clearly explains, simply subverts hindu terms with buddhist teachings of emptiness. I believe you have read those posts before.

 

I am sure that universal mind is a mistranslation by d t suzuki. Universal mind is a non buddhist concept. Suzuki is talking about alaya, but alaya is understood in buddhism and yogacara as a unique, individual stream of consciousness. D t suzuki's translation is very very loose and inaccurate - namdrol has done some of his own translation to compare and what a difference.

 

But fortunately new translations are coming up soon, one by red pine.

 

P.s. This passage says it well:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Karmapa%20Rangjung%20Dorje?m=0

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.

By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

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, he realised.

[xabir2005]

Awareness is not established.

 

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4870&view=unread&sid=143a7f687974ab0729ebc46696bce0de#unread

 

Namdrol:

 

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

 

N

[xabir2005]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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."

I agree not finding the whereabouts of something doesn't mean not truly existing.

 

Even someone at I AM phase will be able to tell you the non-locatability of consciousness.

 

Anatta is not just about that - it is the direct (not by inference or conclusions which I have explained to you earlier) realization about no agent and 'seeing is just the seen'.

[JustARandomPanda]

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.

 

*scratches chin*

 

Yes, I've encountered this specific teaching too. That is, by spreading the Dharma one acquires Great Merit - which then - if said "teacher" REALLY wants to be a True Boddhisattva - does not keep said Great Merit for him/herself but rather "deposits ALL of that Great Merit" into other Sentient Beings "buddha-nature bank accounts" (my own phrase).

 

I've long silently disagreed with some of the ways some Buddhists preach the Dharma. It doesn't help the spiritual evolution of sentient Beings to speak Dharma in such a way that it engenders angry reactionary defensiveness in others. For every person such a Buddhist can point to that they "skillfully" helped there are many others whom they "unskillfully" hindered in the process. This is the problem with using open forums like Taobums to "spread the word". As such I sometimes question how much good overall does it really do to come onto forums like this and start shooting bullets through other people's religion and/or philosophies.

 

 

If I were a Greatly Realized Spiritual Being (which I obviously am not) I would rather try to invoke people's own natural curiosity to get them interested in the Dharma. Only after they'd clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their own curiosity and willingness to investigate their beliefs and/or views would I then begin to point them to A ) Sutras/Suttas, B ) actual practices they can try so they can actually "test out" for themselves what the texts are saying, C ) point them to another realized being than myself the moment it is apparent that is the most beneficial thing for that person and/or I'm hindering, not helping them and D ) giving ample time for each person to "lie fallow" and live out better the Dharma they've already understood and realized instead of keep harping endlessly at them to always "go deeper".

 

I am not so sure there is such a thing as "sustainable Self-Inquiry" in any case. At some point we all need to make some breathing room in our lives for simply getting better at mastering what we've already come to realize.

 

But yes...that was a longwinded way of saying I agree with you. It is indeed taught that by spreading the Dharma Great Merit is acrued. IMO there is a helpful way to do so...and a not-so-helpful way to do so.

[xabir2005]

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.

I am not parroting, I simply report my experiences as I have always done in my e journal.

 

Direct realization is incredibly different from mere knowledge.

 

I had knowledge about I AM, non dual and anatta since several years ago. But it is not until recently, and I can remember even the dates to which they occurred progressively that I experienced those realizations myself.

 

These are totally experiential realizations.

 

I don't want to explain myself too much as a lot more is elaborated in my ebook: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

 

P.s. Not all my expressions are similar to thusness, furthermore even if they have similarities it doesn't mean much: it just means my vocabularies are quite similar to his since we converse a lot.

[xabir2005]

*scratches chin*

 

Yes, I've encountered this specific teaching too. That is, by spreading the Dharma one acquires Great Merit - which then - if said "teacher" REALLY wants to be a True Boddhisattva - does not keep said Great Merit for him/herself but rather "deposits ALL of that Great Merit" into other Sentient Beings "buddha-nature bank accounts" (my own phrase).

 

I've long silently disagreed with some of the ways some Buddhists preach the Dharma. It doesn't help the spiritual evolution of sentient Beings to speak Dharma in such a way that it engenders angry reactionary defensiveness in others. For every person such a Buddhist can point to that they "skillfully" helped there are many others whom they "unskillfully" hindered in the process. This is the problem with using open forums like Taobums to "spread the word". As such I sometimes question how much good overall does it really do to come onto forums like this and start shooting bullets through other people's religion and/or philosophies.

 

 

If I were a Greatly Realized Spiritual Being (which I obviously am not) I would rather try to invoke people's own natural curiosity to get them interested in the Dharma. Only after they'd clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their own curiosity and willingness to investigate their beliefs and/or views would I then begin to point them to A ) Sutras/Suttas, B ) actual practices they can try so they can actually "test out" for themselves what the texts are saying, C ) point them to another realized being than myself the moment it is apparent that is the most beneficial thing for that person and/or I'm hindering, not helping them and D ) giving ample time for each person to "lie fallow" and live out better the Dharma they've already understood and realized instead of keep harping endlessly at them to always "go deeper".

 

I am not so sure there is such a thing as "sustainable Self-Inquiry" in any case. At some point we all need to make some breathing room in our lives for simply getting better at mastering what we've already come to realize.

 

But yes...that was a longwinded way of saying I agree with you. It is indeed taught that by spreading the Dharma Great Merit is acrued. IMO there is a helpful way to do so...and a not-so-helpful way to do so.

Just to clarify:

 

Thusness did not ask me to preach in other forums... The only times he asked to converse with others is if he sees potential in that person to undergo a breakthrough. In fact those people he spoke too generally attain breakthrough in realizations just by conversing with him. In fact almost everyone he converses with will realize what thusness points out because their conditions are already there - just needed the right pointers. He would sit and meditate to observe that person's conditions before giving appropriate replies if he sees a positive condition there. I don't do all these and apparently not everyone attains realization just by speaking with me... And I talk to a large group of people unlike thusness.

 

Also I don't post here to accumulate merits... I post here when I see posts that needs to be corrected.

 

And I wonder where did lucky see that passage as I don't remember discussing about merits in this forum. But since this was mentioned, here's the post I wrote in my buddhist forum last year:

 

 

I remember years ago (in fact even today) Thusness would have me explain the dharma to people from various forums. One time many years ago I thought it would be better if Thusness explained by himself to the others, so I told Thusness why don't you post yourself or something like that. Thusness suddenly appeared serious (he seldom talk in this tone) and asked me so are you going to do this or not? Then he told me the reason (not exact words now but along this line) he had me to do this was because I was lacking in merits to gain enlightenment. And then he said something like... you think I'm joking? Suddenly at that moment I realized why he was always taking the trouble and instructing me to do all those things... when he could have done it himself.

 

Not long later I had a meditation experience... he informed me it is due to my merits ripening due to explaining the dharma to someone some time ago. He informed me there is a direct causal relation. When asked how does he know that merits is important for experience and realization, he simply says this is his experience. He says it may not make a lot of sense to a dualistic mind, but this is how it (dependent origination) works.

 

<!--[endif]-->

 

 

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche

 

 

Accumulating Merit - bSod-nams-bsags-pa

 

 

Translated by Ari Goldfield

 

 

Before listening to Lord Buddha’s teachings, I want to ask you to give rise to supreme bodhicitta. Supreme bodhicitta is developed and increased by first thinking of one’s father and mother in this life and then extending the gratitude and love one feels for them to all sentient beings, even to one’s enemies. We want to attain the state of complete, perfect, and precious enlightenment for their sake. We know that in order to be able to benefit all sentient beings, we need to listen to, reflect, and meditate upon the genuine Dharma teachings with all the enthusiasm we can muster in our hearts. Please give rise to supreme bodhicitta when you listen attentively.

 

We think of our parents first because our opportunity to practice the Dharma in this lifetime is due to the immense kindness they have shown us. We think of our enemies, too, because they were the ones who gave us the exceptional possibility to practice patience when they were unkind and hurt us. Furthermore, there is not a single enemy who was not our caring father or mother at one time in the past, so that is why we remember them with gratitude. We think of the nature of the minds of the people we are associated with - our friends, our enemies, and all sentient beings. We know that the nature of the mind of every single sentient being is clear light, the enlightened heart that is the Buddha nature. Since we have the Buddha nature, we can be sure that we will benefit others immensely. Just as the nature of our own mind is clear light, the nature of our parent’s mind is also clear light. Likewise, the nature of mind of all our friends and enemies is clear light. The nature of mind of every single sentient being is clear light.

 

“Realizing the true nature of reality, Mahamudra,

depends upon accumulating a vast amount of merit.” - Khenpo

 

In order to realize the true nature of reality, Mahamudra, it is necessary to accumulate merit that accords with the teachings that Lord Buddha presented a long time ago. Arya Maitreya taught how to accumulate merit in the text entitled, Madhyantavibhanga – Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes.1 He taught that the ten ways to accumulate limitless merit are: (1) to write down the words of the Buddhadharma, (2) to make offerings to the objects of refuge, (3) to practice generosity, (4) to listen to the precious teachings, (5) to read the invaluable instructions, (6) to memorize the sacred texts, (7) to explain them to others, (8) to recite them, (9) to reflect their meaning, and (10) to meditate them.

 

We will start accumulating merit by writing down the verses I will read to you and in that way you will purify negative actions that you have done with your hands. We have written down a lot of letters and words out of attachment and aversion, and all of that has been very negative. Now it is time to do something positive. The way to go about this is to write down the verses of the Dharma with the good motivation of faith and devotion and with a pure objective. When you write down the truth of the precious Buddhadharma, then the merit you accumulate is limitless. So do write down the verses that I will read to you.

 

The first verse reads: “It is explained that by abandoning the belief in a self, mental afflictions, difficulties, and suffering, one can attain peace. However, since these are all primordially empty of essence, where are the fabrications of abandoning and of not abandoning?”

 

Now that you have written down the words of the first verse, we will recite it, which is the accumulation of merit that purifies all negative words that you have spoken out of attachment and aversion, and all of that has been very negative.

 

Please recite the following verse: “Thoughts of abandoning, non-abandoning, and so forth have never been seen to come or go. Therefore, they are said to be non-existent. Thoughts have never been seen to come or go.” Translator: I made a mistake. Khenpo Rinpoche: Mistakes don’t really exist. In the chapter entitled, An Examination of Mistakes, the Protector Nagarjuna proved that mistakes do not really exist. So: “The variety of doubts neither arises nor ceases." Please continue by reciting the next verse too: “Neither bondage nor liberation have ever been perceived with regard to it. However, like bondage and liberation in dreams, bondage and liberation are merely mind's imputations.”

 

The next verse we want to recite is: "The essence of the self held prisoner has never been seen, and the doubts that bind are free of arising and ceasing. Therefore, bondage and liberation are dependently arisen, mere appearances. Let clinging to them as being real dissolve into the unborn expanse." We should recite the next verse three times, which is: "This life is appearance-emptiness, like a water-moon. So, past and future lives are also appearance-emptiness, like water-moons. Therefore, feelings of joy and pain are dream-like. Know this well, and your view will be profound."

 

If you reflect the meaning of the words in the verses while reciting them, then you are practicing profound analytical meditation. We are not going to practice meditation separated from recitation because reciting and analysing is meditation - yes. Sometimes one needs to take a break and rest. So when you get tired of writing down the precious Dharma, then recite the verses, and when you get tired of reciting them, then just let go and relax.

 

We continue reciting, reflecting, and meditating: "These are the ways that the relative is empty of a very essence and the genuine clear light, the enlightened nature of mind, is empty of the stains of relative fabrications and of all concepts of conventional terms. Therefore, this is known as ‘the empty of other,’ the great middle-way." Let us recite this verse together three times: "In essence, it is originally and perfectly pure and free of the fleeting stains of conceptual fabrications as well, and therefore the enlightened essence of the stainless result is called 'the transcendent perfection of genuine purity.'" Let us recite this verse together three times, too: "Since it is beyond the self that ego-clinging mind believes to exist and beyond the selflessness ascertained through analysis of inference, therefore it is called ‘the transcendently perfect, genuine self.’ Where are the thoughts of self’s filthy clothes?"

 

We continue by reciting the following verses three times: "Samsara and nirvana are imagined to exist in dependence upon each other and therefore neither the one or the other has an essence. Realizing reality of samsara and nirvana’s equality is explained to be transcendently perfect, genuine permanence.”

"Joy and pain are just dependently existing concepts. Their lack of an essence is the way relative things are empty. When the reality of joy and pain being equal is realized, this is called 'transcendently perfect, genuine bliss.'"

"The way the relative is empty of its own essence, the way the genuine is empty of other, and the reality that is pure self, bliss, and constant - may precise knowledge realizing these three increase."

 

Now let us recite them all and practice recitation-meditation. If you do recitation-meditation, you won’t get tired of meditation - your meditation won’t fall into dullness or stupor. Getting tired of meditating can be very dangerous. If you get tired of working, you can rest. If you get tired of studying, you can meditate. But if you get tired of meditating, that’s dangerous. That’s why analytical meditation is excellent.

"It is explained that by abandoning the belief in a self, in all afflictions, difficulties, and suffering, one can attain peace. However, since these are all primordially empty of essence, where are the fabrications of abandoning and not abandoning? Thoughts of abandoning, not abandoning, and so forth have never been seen to come or go and therefore they are said to be of the nature of primordially empty space. The variety of doubts neither arises nor ceases. Neither bondage nor liberation has ever been perceived with regard to it. However, like bondage and liberation in dreams, this bondage and liberation is merely mind's imputation. The essence of the self held prisoner has never been seen, and doubts that bind are free of arising and ceasing. Therefore, bondage and liberation are dependently arisen, mere appearances. Let clinging to them as being real dissolve into the unborn expanse.”

“This life is appearance-emptiness, like a water-moon. So past and future lives are also appearance-emptiness, like water-moons. Therefore, feelings of joy and pain are dream-like. Know this well and your view will be profound.”

“These are the ways that the relative is empty of its very essence and the genuine clear light, the enlightened nature of mind, is empty of the stains of relative fabrications and of all concepts of conventional terms. Therefore, this is renowned as 'the empty-of-other,' the great middle-way.”

“In essence, it is originally and perfectly pure and free of fleeting stains of conceptual fabrications as well. And therefore, the enlightened essence of the stainless result is called 'the transcendent perfection of genuine purity.' Since it is beyond the self that ego-clinging mind believes to exist and since it is beyond selflessness ascertained by means of analysis and inference, therefore it is called ‘the transcendently perfect, genuine self.’ Where are the thoughts of self's filthy clothes?”

"Samsara and nirvana are imagined to exist in dependence upon each other and therefore neither the one or the other has an essence. Realizing the reality of samsara and nirvana's equality is said to be transcendently perfect, genuine permanence.”

“Joy and pain are just dependently existing concepts. Their lack of any essence is the way relative things are empty. When the reality of joy and pain being equal is realized, this is called 'transcendently perfect, genuine bliss.'"

“The way the relative is empty of its own essence, the way the genuine is empty of other, and the reality that is pure self, bliss, and permanence - may precise knowledge realizing these three increase."

 

In the next teaching I will explain some important verses from the text called The Ocean of Definitive Meaning of Mountain Dharma by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen.2 There will be time for questions and answers after further teachings. It is important to leave time for questions at the same time that doubts arise. If we take time for questions before doubts arise, then that doesn’t help very much.

 

Let us continue now by singing the song called The Ultimate View, Meditation, Conduct, and Fruition by Jetsun Milarepa. In this song, Jetsun Milarepa teaches the view of Shentong, the empty-of-other school, so it is very good for us to sing. Everyone needs to analyse and judge for himself and herself, so we should reflect and ask ourselves, "Is this song really in harmony with the view of Shentong or not?"3 The Buddha himself said, "Just like a merchant examines gold by rubbing, burning, and melting it, so you should examine my speech. Accept nothing on blind faith." These are Lord Buddha’s own teachings, and we must examine the words for ourselves. Translator: I will sing one verse and then we can sing it together.

 

 

“The Ultimate View, Meditation, Conduct, and Fruition” by Jetsun Milarepa

 

"The view is original wisdom which is empty,

Meditation clear light, free of fixation,

Conduct continual flow without attachment,

Fruition is nakedness stripped of every stain.

 

This view, the original wisdom that is empty,

Risks getting lost in just being talk and no more.

If certainty which is in touch with what’s meant does not follow,

The words will not manage to free you of clinging to self,

And that’s why definitive certainty means so much.

 

The meditation clear light, free of fixation,

Risks getting lost in just being settling.

If original wisdom does not emerge from within you,

You might settle steadily, but this will not set you free.

But wisdom does not come of dullness and agitation,

And that’s why non-wandering mindfulness means so much.

 

This conduct, continual flow without attachment,

Risks getting lost in only being a pretence.

If the view and meditation are not included,

The eight worldly dharmas may mix with your yogic pursuits,

And that’s why freedom from clinging and veils means so much.

 

Fruition as nakedness stripped of every defect

Risks getting clothed in the garments of attributes.

If delusion is not overcome from its source on the inside,

Your practice may aim very far but fall very short,

And that’s why correcting delusion means so much."4

 

 

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:37.5pt;height:37.5pt'> <v:imagedata src="merit_files/image003.png" mce_src="/forums/1728/topics/merit_files/image003.png" o:title="" /> </v:shape><![endif]--> <!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]-->

 

May virtue increase!

Instructions presented at Vajra Vidya Thrangu House in Oxford, 2000,

transcribed and edited by Gaby Hollmann

 

 

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->

<!--[endif]-->

1 See Ven. Thrangu Rinpoche, Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes by Asanga, based on the inspiration of the Buddha Maitreya. A Commentary, translated by Jules Levinson, Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, Colorado, 2000.

2 Dol-po-pa Shes-rab Rgyal-mtshan (1292-1361), known simply as Dolpopa is often seen as the founder of the Jonangpa Tradition. However, the origins of the Jonangpa tradition in Tibet can be traced to early 12th century master Yumo Mikyo Dorje, but they became much wider known with the help of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Dolpopa was one of the most influential and original Tibetan teachers. He developed the Shentong School and is considered to be one of the greatest exponents of the Kalachakra. In Mountain Doctrine: Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix by Dolpopa (Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, 2006) Jeffrey Hopkins wrote, „Dolpopa was one of the most influential figures of the 14th century Tibet, a dynamic period of doctrinal formulation. His works were monumental and seminal in that they present a penetrating and controversial re-formulation of doctrines on emptiness and Buddha-nature influential through to the present day.”

3 See Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche, Shentong, in the last issue of Thar Lam. See especially Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, translated and arranged by Shenpen Hookham, Longchen Foundation, Oxford, 1st edition 1986, 2nd edition 1988, and Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Trust Publications, Auckland, N.Z., 2000.

4 Translated by Jim Scott, in: Selected Songs of Realization, Marpa Translation Committee. Printed by AKTUELL-Copyshop, Hamburg, 1995, pages 66-68.

[Marblehead]

While it may be true that the "Buddhist" concept of emptiness does not exist in "Taoist Philosophy", the concept of emptiness does exist in the Daodejing.

 

Chapter 11

 

Yep. But that is a totally different concept. Here it is speaking to the void, the space between this and that, as in the space between 'you' and 'me', not suggesting that the manifest is empty.

 

We Taoists are also told to empty our mind. We can't really do that, can we? But we can open our mind and realize what is as exactly what it is without putting our judgements on any of these things.

 

Yes, I was aware that I might be called on that post but that didn't matter because I wanted to say what I did.

 

Thanks for reading though, and pointing out this concept.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

 

View PostHarmonious Emptiness, on 02 August 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

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..

 

 

The question is the problem. 'Exist' and 'non-exist' are merely terms. The question is similar to asking whether light is a particle or a wave. Consider: In the Buddhist context, form and the 'idea of emptiness' both exist in maya. But when one talks in the context of the ordinary world, form is distinct and meaningful. Emptiness is merely a philosophical idea. When one talks in the context of the Diamond Sutra, form is merely "a manner of speaking", not truth.

 

So we both exist and don't exist. One must become comfortable with paradox, or it's hard to move.

The question is the problem. 'Exist' and 'non-exist' are merely terms. The question is similar to asking whether light is a particle or a wave. Consider: In the Buddhist context, form and the 'idea of emptiness' both exist in maya. But when one talks in the context of the ordinary world, form is distinct and meaningful. Emptiness is merely a philosophical idea. When one talks in the context of the Diamond Sutra, form is merely "a manner of speaking", not truth.

 

So we both exist and don't exist. One must become comfortable with paradox, or it's hard to move.

 

So you basically agree with what I said, though we could argue about Emptiness being more than a philosophical idea.

 

I personally see Emptiness similar to The Taiji (Great Ultimate) and "God" being the life that runs through everything. Emptiness sounds ultimately the same.. not so "Nothingness" since Emptiness is still Emptiness and their wouldn't be Form without It.

 

That's not necessarily here nor there, it's just a perception.

 

 

However, still waiting for Xabir to answer, since it seems most would agree with my earlier statement. Though that may put an unfortunate end to this 20plus page playground

[JustARandomPanda]

And I wonder where did lucky see that passage as I don't remember discussing about merits in this forum.

 

I don't think you did. Nor did Lucky. I mentioned it however because it relates directly to what Luckystrikes implied having seen - that Thusness advised you to spread the Dharma.

 

I brought merit-making up because that's one form of what spreading the Dharma is (or takes). It's laying down surrounding "conditions" for other beings having the chance to ripen into full Buddhahood.

 

The only reason I am aware of some of the teachings on Merit-Making and how they relate to Boddhisattva-hood and Buddhahood is that Master Nan Huai-Chin talks about this.

 

I remember years ago (in fact even today) Thusness would have me explain the dharma to people from various forums. One time many years ago I thought it would be better if Thusness explained by himself to the others, so I told Thusness why don't you post yourself or something like that. Thusness suddenly appeared serious (he seldom talk in this tone) and asked me so are you going to do this or not? Then he told me the reason (not exact words now but along this line) he had me to do this was because I was lacking in merits to gain enlightenment. And then he said something like... you think I'm joking? Suddenly at that moment I realized why he was always taking the trouble and instructing me to do all those things... when he could have done it himself.

 

Not long later I had a meditation experience... he informed me it is due to my merits ripening due to explaining the dharma to someone some time ago. He informed me there is a direct causal relation. When asked how does he know that merits is important for experience and realization, he simply says this is his experience. He says it may not make a lot of sense to a dualistic mind, but this is how it (dependent origination) works.

 

Yes. Bill Bodri and Master Nan both talk about this. As does Master Hsuan Hua. As well as the neccessity of making and keeping Vows.

 

My reply was the reply of a sentient being whom is neither A ) spiritually realized nor B ) has many merits accumulated. In fact I have a ton of demerits accumulated from this lifetime I must find a way to atone for.

 

My reply was the way it was precisely to prevent what I've seen happen at this forum - too many people at Taobums now think VERY poorly about Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha and Buddhists in general because of the *way* some debates and pontification of views are presented here. There are times when they come across with outright ATTACKS and PUT-DOWNS in addition to whatever criticism may be put forward.

 

I can not help but think that someone who has taken the Boddhisattva vows would not A ) notice this Taobums backlash and B ) try to figure out how to get their Dharma message across without engendering such a backlash. No, not everybody who hears is going to be interested. But I've seen people at Taobums whom otherwise might have been naturally curious and interested now turn away in disgust.

 

 

I myself would be happy to share what little I now know of the Dharma here at Taobums except I fear I would be shouted down about how spiritually unrealized I am and thus don't know what I'm talking about.

[xabir2005]

The emptiness spoken about in Buddhism is not "the great void" or "nothingness".

 

It simply means the absence of independent unchanging existence or core... And emptiness is twofold: emptiness of self and emptiness of objects.

 

Because emptiness does not deny appearance but merely that they exist independently and unchangingly, there is no danger of falling into nihilism, in fact the view and realization of emptiness is the cure to eternalistic and nihilistic views.

 

This article should explain better what emptiness means: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

[Marblehead]

I myself would be happy to share what little I now know of the Dharma here at Taobums except I fear I would be shouted down about how spiritually unrealized I am and thus don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Just put on your red dress, your high heeled sneakers and your boxing gloves and go for it. You have every right to share your understandings. They are your understandings so they can't be "wrong" although they may be lacking. Within the criticism to what you say there will be information and knowledge that you may be able to apply to your life and grow your understandings.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The Buddha-hood being talked about, is not the true Buddha-hood.. only Buddha was privy to that realization. The 'knock-offs' being presented as Buddhism are less than cheap imitations, at least an imitation understands its relationship with the original.. the aggressive and contentious Buddhist presence on this forum has diminished my interest greatly, both in Buddhism, and in this forum. I make the mistake of thinking that there is an interest in seeing what is so, and so i present 'understanding' to Buddhist Preachers, and i am rebuked with Scripture, Chapter and verse.. i sense no authenticity, no sincere will to 'know' among Buddhists and their thuggish RT step-brethren, only a deep contentment to do as told.. abandoning the only way to truth, the ability to look and see for yourself, as compared to looking and seeing as directed..

 

If i should follow my intuition and leave this Buddhist conquered forum to its own self-defeating demise, i should like to acknowledge a few decent 'selfs', keepers of the faith, as it were: Marblehead, Stigweard and his wealth of useful knowledge, Ya Mu's annoying but deeply appreciated fairness.. and a few others, which i cannot coax from the old gray stuff between my ears, but.. i am simply appalled by the lack of character (yes, i am judging) of people presenting Buddhist principles and 'no self' dogmas.. THIS is the source of true suffering, creating the illusion of no self such that it justifies whatever methods inflate the messianic self-imagery.. and, so it is.. i go to simply look, for a while, this talking has no result.. better to remove the splinter than watch it fester..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

I don't think you did. Nor did Lucky. I mentioned it however because it relates directly to what Luckystrikes implied having seen - that Thusness advised you to spread the Dharma.

 

I brought merit-making up because that's one form of what spreading the Dharma is (or takes). It's laying down surrounding "conditions" for other beings having the chance to ripen into full Buddhahood.

 

The only reason I am aware of some of the teachings on Merit-Making and how they relate to Boddhisattva-hood and Buddhahood is that Master Nan Huai-Chin talks about this.

 

 

 

Yes. Bill Bodri and Master Nan both talk about this. As does Master Hsuan Hua. As well as the neccessity of making and keeping Vows.

 

My reply was the reply of a sentient being whom is neither A ) spiritually realized nor B ) has many merits accumulated. In fact I have a ton of demerits accumulated from this lifetime I must find a way to atone for.

 

My reply was the way it was precisely to prevent what I've seen happen at this forum - too many people at Taobums now think VERY poorly about Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha and Buddhists in general because of the *way* some debates and pontification of views are presented here. There are times when they come across with outright ATTACKS and PUT-DOWNS in addition to whatever criticism may be put forward.

 

I can not help but think that someone who has taken the Boddhisattva vows would not A ) notice this Taobums backlash and B ) try to figure out how to get their Dharma message across without engendering such a backlash. No, not everybody who hears is going to be interested. But I've seen people at Taobums whom otherwise might have been naturally curious and interested now turn away in disgust.

 

 

I myself would be happy to share what little I now know of the Dharma here at Taobums except I fear I would be shouted down about how spiritually unrealized I am and thus don't know what I'm talking about.

True... One has to be skillful in sharing dharma.

[Simplicity Rules]

I post here when I see posts that needs to be corrected.

 

 

No wonder the Buddhists on this forum are turning most heads away from Buddhism and Buddhist discussions. Believe me because Buddha said so, the Sutta says so, Namdrol says so, Thusness says so and also because I've realized it. Ask why should I - and the response is because Buddha says so and the Sutta says so. Why again should I believe what the Sutta says - because that is what I've realized and you have not. Such circular argument is what I see throughout this mega thread.

 

The attitude of the Buddhists here is: either you're with us, or against us.

[JustARandomPanda]

Greetings..

 

The Buddha-hood being talked about, is not the true Buddha-hood.. only Buddha was privy to that realization. The 'knock-offs' being presented as Buddhism are less than cheap imitations, at least an imitation understands its relationship with the original.. the aggressive and contentious Buddhist presence on this forum has diminished my interest greatly, both in Buddhism, and in this forum. I make the mistake of thinking that there is an interest in seeing what is so, and so i present 'understanding' to Buddhist Preachers, and i am rebuked with Scripture, Chapter and verse.. i sense no authenticity, no sincere will to 'know' among Buddhists and their thuggish RT step-brethren, only a deep contentment to do as told.. abandoning the only way to truth, the ability to look and see for yourself, as compared to looking and seeing as directed..

 

If i should follow my intuition and leave this Buddhist conquered forum to its own self-defeating demise, i should like to acknowledge a few decent 'selfs', keepers of the faith, as it were: Marblehead, Stigweard and his wealth of useful knowledge, Ya Mu's annoying but deeply appreciated fairness.. and a few others, which i cannot coax from the old gray stuff between my ears, but.. i am simply appalled by the lack of character (yes, i am judging) of people presenting Buddhist principles and 'no self' dogmas.. THIS is the source of true suffering, creating the illusion of no self such that it justifies whatever methods inflate the messianic self-imagery.. and, so it is.. i go to simply look, for a while, this talking has no result.. better to remove the splinter than watch it fester..

 

Be well..

 

 

 

*heavy sigh*

 

TzuJanLi you will be missed. I may not know much about Taoism other than Lao Tzu and Lieh Tzu but it is always delightful to read the insights of the many Taoists such as yourself who post here. I depend on such posts to teach me Taoism. It's a rather odd situation as it's much easier to find extensive literature and translated Buddhist texts than it is on Taoist texts. Perhaps as China starts to become a Superpower more Taoist texts will be translated.

 

I don't know if this will help but there is also the possibility of putting people on your ignore list. If not, I hope someday you will feel welcomed back.

 

 

*mumbles*

 

I dunno.... I *might* share what little I know of Buddhism as I experience it and live it out in my daily life - because for me that's what Buddhism means. Maybe that means I'm a Pragmatical Wanna-Be-Buddhist? I like to read the handful of Buddhist texts I own then sit there and try to figure out how to apply what I've read in my everyday life. Some of it has to do with assorted suggested meditational practices, others have to do with figuring out how to apply the 5 Precepts or the Noble 8 Fold Path in my daily life.

 

Personally...if I could wave a magic wand that is how I would prefer to see Buddhism discussed on this board. The Buddhist discussions and debates on this board have been about things I consider *very* high-level. In other words...stuff that applies only to a tiny segment of people who've been practicing meditation, yantra yoga and other assorted stuff of a specific tradition for many, many years.

 

That doesn't apply to anyone at this forum (including me) except for the tiny handful of people who like arguing with each other. It might even be more generally tolerated among Taobummers if such criticisms and references to high-level practices stuck mostly to threads dedicated to Buddhist subjects and POV specifically. The bigger problem is when it spills over into Taoist threads or Qi Gong or Inner Alchemy threads. I admit I don't know what to do about that other than to suggest putting people you find wearisome on your ignore list.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Just to clarify:

 

Thusness did not ask me to preach in other forums... The only times he asked to converse with others is if he sees potential in that person to undergo a breakthrough. In fact those people he spoke too generally attain breakthrough in realizations just by conversing with him. In fact almost everyone he converses with will realize what thusness points out because their conditions are already there - just needed the right pointers. He would sit and meditate to observe that person's conditions before giving appropriate replies if he sees a positive condition there. I don't do all these and apparently not everyone attains realization just by speaking with me... And I talk to a large group of people unlike thusness.

 

Also I don't post here to accumulate merits... I post here when I see posts that needs to be corrected.

 

And I wonder where did lucky see that passage as I don't remember discussing about merits in this forum. But since this was mentioned, here's the post I wrote in my buddhist forum last year:

 

 

I remember years ago (in fact even today) Thusness would have me explain the dharma to people from various forums. One time many years ago I thought it would be better if Thusness explained by himself to the others, so I told Thusness why don't you post yourself or something like that. Thusness suddenly appeared serious (he seldom talk in this tone) and asked me so are you going to do this or not? Then he told me the reason (not exact words now but along this line) he had me to do this was because I was lacking in merits to gain enlightenment. And then he said something like... you think I'm joking? Suddenly at that moment I realized why he was always taking the trouble and instructing me to do all those things... when he could have done it himself.

 

Not long later I had a meditation experience... he informed me it is due to my merits ripening due to explaining the dharma to someone some time ago. He informed me there is a direct causal relation. When asked how does he know that merits is important for experience and realization, he simply says this is his experience. He says it may not make a lot of sense to a dualistic mind, but this is how it (dependent origination) works.

Right. Your purpose here is to lead people into your version of Buddhism to gain merit. This is something I did not fully understand until I came across that passage. You come to thetaobums with a specific purpose in mind, with this sense of spreading the Dharma. There are a bunch of rockheads here, including me often times, that makes us sound like close minded fools. But I don't come here with a purpose or to preach or to correct, I come on this board like many others, I presume, with not much of well defined agenda at all but out of interest and passion in spiritual knowledge.

 

People on the bums are different from those on Buddhist boards in that they are mostly individual thinkers and practitioners who seem to trust their own judgments over scripture or religious dogma. This at least leaves room for discussion and open mindedness, because there is an admittance to one's own shortcomings. Your underlying goal on the other hand, is to instruct people here who are less familiar with Buddhist sutras, handpicking passages, selling yourself on authority alone under the Buddhist banner.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am not parroting, I simply report my experiences as I have always done in my e journal.

 

Direct realization is incredibly different from mere knowledge.

 

I had knowledge about I AM, non dual and anatta since several years ago. But it is not until recently, and I can remember even the dates to which they occurred progressively that I experienced those realizations myself.

 

These are totally experiential realizations.

 

I don't want to explain myself too much as a lot more is elaborated in my ebook: http://awakeningtore...ke-journal.html

 

P.s. Not all my expressions are similar to thusness, furthermore even if they have similarities it doesn't mean much: it just means my vocabularies are quite similar to his since we converse a lot.

They are not just similar. They are eerily parallel, the language is imitative in style and vocabulary.

 

You can get brainwashed into any sort of direct experience.

 

I'm not discrediting your attainments and realizations. Only you can be the sincere judge of that. But the way you present them lacks any sort of personal originality. Several years ago when we began discussions on Thusness's stuff and Buddhism, you showed the same conviction in his words as you do now. And at that time you lacked any in depth personal realization as you admit. What does this say about your approach to spirituality, that you were willing to debate for pages on end on something you did not have thorough experience of with an iron conviction? How can you have confidence in your inquiry when you had already convinced yourself of someone else's truths?

 

And christ, more and more quotes. The whole point I'm directing at you is NOT about emptiness, self, no-self, yada. But your notably dogmatic approach to spirituality.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Just put on your red dress, your high heeled sneakers and your boxing gloves and go for it. You have every right to share your understandings. They are your understandings so they can't be "wrong" although they may be lacking. Within the criticism to what you say there will be information and knowledge that you may be able to apply to your life and grow your understandings.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The emptiness spoken about in Buddhism is not "the great void" or "nothingness".

 

It simply means the absence of independent unchanging existence or core... And emptiness is twofold: emptiness of self and emptiness of objects.

 

Because emptiness does not deny appearance but merely that they exist independently and unchangingly, there is no danger of falling into nihilism, in fact the view and realization of emptiness is the cure to eternalistic and nihilistic views.

 

This article should explain better what emptiness means: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

That's a good link.

 

 

Ok, so if all agree:

 

"form is no different to emptiness,

emptiness no different to form."

 

 

Where's the disagreement?

 

Anyone?

 

 

Or is everyone just trying to learn from each other?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Where's the disagreement?

The disagreement is in our understandings of mind.

 

Or is everyone just trying to learn from each other?

The point, however, is that Xabir is not here to learn, but to preach dogma because he thinks he will get merit from it. Or some other reason. He is in his eyes here to correct people.

 

Another problem is his inquiries and realizations are often supported not by himself, but by hand picked quotes and assumptions presupposed on a teaching. They are not genuine inquiries but tailored paths.

 

The biggest problem is people who come across his posts for the first time will often miss this, especially people not familiar with Buddhism, and believe what he writes to be some sort of truths or absolute Buddhism or deep personal realizations.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The disagreement is in our understanding of mind.

 

 

So, if you don't mind (lol, npi..), how do the two sides differ in understanding of mind?

[Todd]

Yep. But that is a totally different concept. Here it is speaking to the void, the space between this and that, as in the space between 'you' and 'me', not suggesting that the manifest is empty.

 

 

 

Ok, please read Chapter 21 in light of Chapter 4 (read chapter 4 first). Please pay particular attention to the first line of Chapter 4, and remember that in Chinese, "The Tao as a thing" can just as easily read "The Tao as things".

 

Still just the spaces between things?