Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

guruyoga · December 25, 2011

This thread probably belongs to the Buddhist subforum and not to General section.

Lucky7Strikes · December 25, 2011

It means undeluded cognition is also illusory/empty.

Let me put it this way, it is nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," because that negates the very statement itself which is included in "everything." It is like saying "there is no writing" or "there is nothing." It is a statement including a totality, "everything," and negation, or an invalidation, of the totality. That statement itself is a contradiction of its message. At best, it says absolutely nothing.

Yes, undeluded cognition....

There is no such thing as an inherently existing thing called non-cognition, so non-cognition is also empty, but since non-cognition (not sure what you mean by that) is not an appearance, 'illusory' may not make sense in this context...

Anyway I did not speak about non-cognition, just deluded and undeluded cognition.

Don't get you.

I don't think you understand what I meant. You cannot say cognition itself is empty or illusory. You simply have no reference or basis for doing so. We can say something is illusory based on our experience of degrees of illusoriness that leads to an idea of non-ilusoriness, of substantiality. Simply put, you can't have an idea of a quality without something to compare it to. In the case of cognition, we cannot imagine a state of non-cognition because it doesn't come in degrees. There are many states of cognition, some are more vibrant, other hazy, and some, in your view, deluded and others undeluded. However it cannot be cognizant of non-cognizance. The best idea we can have is that of being cognizant of nothingness, which is still a form of cognition. An apt comparison can be made with trying to hear saltiness, an experience that happens beyond the ear's capacity, and is basically a non-audible quality. That's what I meant by the fallacy of stating that cognizance itself is illusory. You have nothing to compare or contrast its substantiality to, or if we apply the metaphor of the mirage, it would be a case where you cannot imagine or have experienced something that is not like a mirage, hence the mirage cannot be said to be false, but true, therefore not a mirage at all. The word loses its meaning.

No. There is just cognition without a cognizer and something cognizing. You are falling into the error of inference again - that to see requires a seer and an object seen (have already told you earlier this is not required). If you awaken, it is like Kalaka Sutta - you do not establish a seer or sometihng seen, just suchness.

Yes, and those experiences are illusory (appearing but without substance)

Why not?

Because without the duality of a congnizer and the cognized, there is no basis for you to assert the apple that is seen. The apple cannot be said to be in front of you to say "there is one way of experiencing this apple, and another way of experiencing this apple." In such a case, there is no "this apple." If there is no duality, then there is just the experience of appleness, or just a mere stream of images that resemble an apple, which I believe is what you are saying. And if there is no apple there in the first place, and just a vast arrays of experience giving a rise to the idea of an apple, how can you say "there is a correct way of experiencing this apple and an incorrect of experiencing this apple."

Similarly if you deny the cognizer, you cannot purport a deluded or an undeluded way of cognition. There would be just a stream of experiences, and the deludedness or undeludedness would belong to moments instead of a being or a something. And since all experiential appearances are illusory in your point of view, how can one moment be more or less deluded about itself than any other moments? You can only draw a line between illusion and delusion if by illusion you describe the nature of all appearances, and delusion to mean the perception of those appearances. And the latter requires duality of a cognizer, which you reject. If else, ther is no need to have to distinguish the two terms: If all experiences are illusory and insubstantial without a perceiver, whether an experience is deluded or not is completely relative and irrelevant, a mere label.

So not only is it nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," the consequences of that statement denies the validity of any further conclusions including itself.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · December 25, 2011

This thread probably belongs to the Buddhist subforum and not to General section.

Not at all. I'm trying not to steer this into a debate about Buddhism, but approach Xabir's ideas from a secular perspective.

Lucky7Strikes · December 25, 2011

The process is somewhat similar in that both requires contemplation, but not so similar because your conclusion is not made based on inference but by direct seeing.

Analysis has its place in the process of contemplating... but the realization is non-conceptual. Because concepts cannot directly cognize ultimate truth, the most concepts can do is serve as a raft - such as a fire on the candle that when finished burning the candle, consumes itself - no more candle, no more fire.

Realization of the nature of reality thus is a non conceptual realization that burns away all concepts leaving equipose of reality non-conceptually - perception of reality as it is non-conceptually.

If you still rely on conceptual understanding, realization has not arisen... so thats what I mean. There is no inference at all involved - do you use inference to come to the realization of I AM, of luminosity, of non dual? No you simply see it, but it is not without a process of contemplating before it is seen.

So...the only support you have for your realization to this "ultimate truth" is that "I saw it!" It seems you basically cannot support your ideas beyond this. Your realization is therefore merely an experience, a personal one at that. You often criticize other seekers for reifying their peak experiences and seeing it as the truth, but it seems like that's what you are doing too assuming that your version is somehow more soundly supported through the right insight and contemplation. I simply don't see it. To me it is apparent by this discussion that you seem to have glanced over a lot of issues.

The funny thing is even in your own paradigm your realization is self-contradictory, it does not make sense to itself. For instance, since "everything is illusory," nothing is legitimated or how there is nothing to be realized about something, since you deny all sense of duality and just stick to "just suchness arising."

Do you say for example after you analyzed this and this (tha I am not my body and not my mind) then you infer that there is an I AM Presence... of course not, you either see it directly or not. That inferred understanding is at most a vague glimpse or experience but not the doubtless non-inferred I AM Realization - so this is how the 'conclusive conviction' arises as contrast to inference. The same goes to any other realization including anatta.

Sorry to say, I do not follow your line of reasoning because this has not been my experience. My experience is that though I had an intellectual conviction of anatta and impermanence, at some point in my practice I still felt very much 'permanent', 'self', etc. Until further insights arose. That is conceptuality in itself is incapable of really shifting your way of perception until direct insight.

"Hard to perceive and understand, Vacchagotta, is this Dharma, rare, excellent, beyond the sphere of logic, subtle, to be understood only by the wise..." - Buddha

Not true since understanding isn't necessarily a linear process. I try to understand the I AM presence, what it means, how my awareness came to discover that sense of vividness and luminosity, and how that fits into a larger picture of how I tend to see and experience reality. I try not make conclusive statements merely based on appearances or observations of appearances. I have a mind that can link varying experiences together to form a relative picture, so I choose to, right or wrongly, rely on that ability. It's similar to splitting meditation of shamatha (observatory) and vipassana (insight/contemplation).

Logic can only serve as a raft and not to direct insight. Anyway I didn't use a lot of logic - unless you are into Madhyamaka. An understanding of things before contemplating will help as an antidote to wrong understanding (with wrong understanding one cannot even begin to look at the right direction), however it is not the same as realization.

Well, then it seems you are not using logic correctly. Logic, imo, should be used like a compass or a map being filled in as you explore new territory to see that you are not lost, or even more importantly, prevent you from believing that you are already at your destination when you are actually somewhere totally different. It's not supposed to point to you where to go, but just to let you check your location to see it connect with where you've come from.

I don't know if anyone believed in santa claus in adulthood again - apparently, I have never heard of any such persons and if you can find one news article that says an adult suddenly believed in santa claus again, that makes it plausible. Until then, lets not make ridiculous statements without evidence.

But whether you can personally believe in santa claus again, what I can say is that I can never, never believe in a Self again because this is not an inferential understanding but a direct unshakeable insight.

The santa claus is an extreme example relating an idea of how your convictions can change with seeing the flaws in how you came to that conviction. It happens all the time, especially in the scientific world when someone points to an experimental error.

As I said - ultimate truth is universal. And ultimate truth is not A personal experience, it is a discovery about the nature of ALL phenomenon as being so - without self, without substance, dependently originated. While realization is an experience, it is not merely a peak experience of something, but an experience of realizing the nature of reality.

Now you are just making grandiose statements about your own experiences without good evidence.

i.e. An experience is like NDNCDIMOP

A discovery or realization is like the realization of anatta.

How I came to the conviction is not through inferrential, but a contemplative exercise (combined with all my previous experience and insights at that moment) that resulted in a direct, non-inferential seeing.

And I am being critical of what you call non-inferential seeing and pointing out a lot of contradictions in the lines you draw between realization and experience, illusion and delusion, direct cognition and inferred cognition, beliefs and truth. You have a lot of your definitions contradicting each other, and the lines you draw between them are just nonsensical. I think the problem is simple. You did not contemplate enough into the process of realization because Thusness more or less handed it to you and you accepted it without enough incentives to criticize it, since your upbringing had been so conditioned in Buddhism.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 25, 2011

Let me put it this way, it is nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," because that negates the very statement itself which is included in "everything." It is like saying "there is no writing" or "there is nothing." It is a statement including a totality, "everything," and negation, or an invalidation, of the totality. That statement itself is a contradiction of its message. At best, it says absolutely nothing.

Good. Now you understand why in the end Buddha says he hasn't said a single word.

Emptiness is merely a non-affirming negation. It negates existents while not establishing anything including a position of non-existence.

I don't think you understand what I meant. You cannot say cognition itself is empty or illusory. You simply have no reference or basis for doing so.

When I say cognition is illusory, I don't mean there is an existing thing called cognition, that is illusory. I mean the appearance of cognition is ultimately empty or illusory which means there is no real cognition behind the appearance of cognition - appearance means merely an empty illusion without substance.

In Diamond Sutra it always say, 'A' is not 'A', therefore its 'A'.

Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions).

What is dependently arisen has no independent existence anywhere - so are simply like mere illusion, magician's trick, or dream-like appearances that has no substance or core anywhere.

We can say something is illusory based on our experience of degrees of illusoriness that leads to an idea of non-ilusoriness, of substantiality. Simply put, you can't have an idea of a quality without something to compare it to.

Yes when explaining it is always in comparison - it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality. In meditative equipoise no comparison is needed because it is not through analysis.

But to speak to you in terms of language, I can use pointers. The best pointer is to point to you that your notion of substantiality is false, is to negate that view of substantiality. When you have a realization that negates the view of substantiality, then everything becomes seen as illusory.

In the case of cognition, we cannot imagine a state of non-cognition because it doesn't come in degrees. There are many states of cognition, some are more vibrant, other hazy, and some, in your view, deluded and others undeluded. However it cannot be cognizant of non-cognizance. The best idea we can have is that of being cognizant of nothingness, which is still a form of cognition. An apt comparison can be made with trying to hear saltiness, an experience that happens beyond the ear's capacity, and is basically a non-audible quality. That's what I meant by the fallacy of stating that cognizance itself is illusory.

Wrong analogy. You are comparing the absence of experience of cognizance, with the presence of experience of cognizance, and saying you cannot experience the absence of cognizance since all experiences are an experience of cognizance.

I'm not rejecting the appearance of cognizance (do know that cognizance and appearance are inseparable - in seeing just seen no seer), I am rejecting the inherent existence of cognizance. So you should be comparing the view of substantiality with the lack of it, not the presence of appearance and absence of appearance. Appearance, emptiness, and luminosity are inseparable.

When you realize Anatta, you do not see 'All is Awareness'. You don't deny luminosity but you realize that 'there is just the breathe, the scent, the sight' and 'Awareness' is just a label collating the diverse, scattered and disjoint manifestation - there is no one awareness linking all of them together, you do not subsume everything to be one substance but see that 'Awareness' is an empty label, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, just the diverse manifestation. As an analogy: there is no river apart from flowing, wind apart from blowing, weather apart from the wetting, forming and parting of clouds, wind, etc changing moment to moment - so it is not 'All is Weather' (that is mere convention) but ultimately 'there is no The Weather' just like there is no 'The Awareness'.

So am I comparing 'awareness' with lack of it, or 'weather' with the lack of it, or 'river' with the lack of it? No, I am not talking about the presence (existence) or absence (non-existence) of awareness, or weather, or river. I am talking about the lack of a substantial self in any of them. No aware-ness. No weather-ness. No river-ness. Just the blowing, the flowing, the manifestation of six dependently originated cognizance.

I am not comparing existence with non-existence (which would depend on the notion of an existent). The nihilistic notion of non-existence says that an existent self first exists, then becomes non-existent after death, thus rejecting the validity of karma and rebirth. But when you say there is no existent self in the first place apart from dependently originated activities, there is no basis/self to annihilate or become non-existent when you die. So the extremes of existence and non-existence, eternalism or nihilism are both rejected at once.

Of course even the 'activities' are also ultimately empty and when realized the twofold emptiness becomes actualized.

You have nothing to compare or contrast its substantiality to, or if we apply the metaphor of the mirage, it would be a case where you cannot imagine or have experienced something that is not like a mirage, hence the mirage cannot be said to be false, but true, therefore not a mirage at all. The word loses its meaning.

Why would you need to 'compare or contrast its substantiality' - when you realize seeing is just the sight and there is No 'The Awareness', you will have effectively understood the difference between false cognition and correct cognition in terms of anatta. Edited December 25, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 25, 2011

Because without the duality of a congnizer and the cognized, there is no basis for you to assert the apple that is seen. The apple cannot be said to be in front of you to say "there is one way of experiencing this apple, and another way of experiencing this apple." In such a case, there is no "this apple." If there is no duality, then there is just the experience of appleness, or just a mere stream of images that resemble an apple, which I believe is what you are saying. And if there is no apple there in the first place, and just a vast arrays of experience giving a rise to the idea of an apple, how can you say "there is a correct way of experiencing this apple and an incorrect of experiencing this apple."

Because since there is no apple and no cognizer, any notion of a cognizer and an apple is false. Correct cognition is cognition that does not establish an experiencer or something experienced.

I never say "this is a correct way of experiencing an apple" - if I do it is just a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, because there is no apple at all, so correct cognition is cognition undeluded by the view of a cognizer and the view of an existing apple. There is just an unestablished "suchness". Even this is a figure of speech pointing at what is experientially seen, because to begin to say "There is" is already wrong. "Is" (existence) and "is not" (non-existence) don't apply.

Similarly if you deny the cognizer, you cannot purport a deluded or an undeluded way of cognition.

Of course I can talk about deluded and undeluded way of cognition - deluded cognition would be an experience experienced with the illusion of a cognizer and something cognized, and undeluded would be otherwise.

There would be just a stream of experiences, and the deludedness or undeludedness would belong to moments instead of a being or a something.

Yes, they are deluded moments of cognition, I never said otherwise. They are deluded moments of cognition - but deluded here means cognition that is muddled with the imagination that there is a real cognizer and something cognized.

And since all experiential appearances are illusory in your point of view, how can one moment be more or less deluded about itself than any other moments?

Not deluded 'about itself' since there is no 'the itself', just delusion and non-delusion appearance of cognition, cognition being a mere empty appearance.

You can only draw a line between illusion and delusion if by illusion you describe the nature of all appearances, and delusion to mean the perception of those appearances. And the latter requires duality of a cognizer, which you reject.

Perception is simply an appearance, and I already explained how cognition/appearance does not require cognizer - I already told you it is a mere inference that has no basis other than your thought that it is required. In seeing just the seen (without something being seen) - no seer.

If else, ther is no need to have to distinguish the two terms: If all experiences are illusory and insubstantial without a perceiver, whether an experience is deluded or not is completely relative and irrelevant, a mere label.

When all labels (relative, conventional truths) are seen to be empty and baseless, that is wisdom, (baseless, empty, and furthermore liberating) otherwise there is delusion and suffering (baseless, empty, all apparent, yet felt as real and thus painful)

So not only is it nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," the consequences of that statement denies the validity of any further conclusions including itself.

Everything is illusory is a non-asserting negation of existents.

Lastly I'll leave something awesome by Dalai Lama:

Generally speaking, there are two forms of meditation on emptiness. One is the space-like meditation on emptiness, which is characterised by the total absence or negation of inherent existence. The other is called the illusion-like meditation on emptiness. The space-like meditation must come first, because without the realisation of the total absence of inherent existence, the illusion-like perception or understanding will not occur.

For the illusion-like understanding of all phenomena to occur, there needs to be a composite of both the perception or appearance and the negation, so that when we perceive the world and engage with it we can view all things and events as resembling illusions. We will recognise that although things appear to us, they are devoid of objective, independent, intrinsic existence. This is how the illusion-like understanding arises. The author of the Eight Verses indicates the experiential result when he writes: 'May I, recognising all things as illusions, devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.'

When we speak of cultivating the illusion-like understanding of the nature of reality, we need to bear in mind the different interpretations of the term 'illusion-like'. The non-Buddhist Indian schools also speak of the illusion-like nature of reality, and there are different interpretations within Buddhist schools. For example, the Buddhist realist schools explain the nature of reality to be illusion-like in the sense that, although we tend to perceive things as having permanence, in reality they are changing moment by moment and it is this that gives them an illusion-like character.

In the context of our short text, the illusion-like nature of reality must be understood as relating to all things and events. Although we tend to perceive them as possessing some kind of intrinsic nature or existence, in reality they are all devoid of such reality. So there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. It is in this sense that things and events are said to have an illusion-like nature.

Edited December 25, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 25, 2011

I want you to reply to my last post before I post in reply to the past two of yours.

But I want to stick a question here that I think needs answering.

Can you give me an example of "direct" experience of something that is without inferences? For example, having a vision of a table would not be a direct experience since you have associative notions of what a table is to be able to recognize it. It's not a direct experience.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 26, 2011

Can you give me an example of "direct" experience of something that is without inferences? For example, having a vision of a table would not be a direct experience since you have associative notions of what a table is to be able to recognize it. It's not a direct experience.

Very simple. PCE, NDNCDIMOP is a "direct" experience - non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Even I AM is a NDNCDIMOP but relating only to non-conceptual thought, whereas the PCE of AF is NDNCDIMOP in all sense perceptions, for example.

However, having NDNCDIMOP doesn't mean you realize anything... however the realization has that quality of directness, and in that moment you realize or discover something that has always been the case.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 26, 2011

Very simple. PCE, NDNCDIMOP is a "direct" experience - non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Even I AM is a NDNCDIMOP but relating only to non-conceptual thought, whereas the PCE of AF is NDNCDIMOP in all sense perceptions, for example.

However, having NDNCDIMOP doesn't mean you realize anything... however the realization has that quality of directness, and in that moment you realize or discover something that has always been the case.

Uh, no. Something other than that. Those are not examples but your own definition of what a direct experience is, just other labels you choose to put on them with just slight variations for each. Instead of these labels, PCE, NDNCDIMOP, I AM, I would like you to describe a direct experience that does not have any non-conceptual or inferred quality to them. Something we can readily relate to, a practical example.

Haha! And I also notice that you defined "direct experience" as...direct! Or immediate! Which might as well be just listing synonyms :rolleyes: Woooow. How insightful. Basically your reply here is, PCE (as an example, of course) is direct experience. Direct experience is PCE. :huh:

For example, like experiencing a sunset. How do you exactly experience a sunset directly without any associations that goes along with that sunset, like it's brightness, the knowledge that it is the sun, its warmth, or something as basic as your spatial relationship to it, etc. Or if you are looking at it rays and seeing it spreading in the horizon, how do you experience it without any concepts framing that experience in your mind?

Since you are not going to reply to the rest of my replies beforehand, I'll just reply to the past two lengthy posts later tomorrow. .

Edited December 26, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 26, 2011

Uh, no. Something other than that. Those are not examples but your own definition of what a direct experience is, just other labels you choose to put on them with just slight variations for each. Instead of these labels, PCE, NDNCDIMOP, I AM, I would like you to describe a direct experience that does not have any non-conceptual or inferred quality to them. Something we can readily relate to, a practical example.

Haha! And I also notice that you defined "direct experience" as...direct! Or immediate! Which might as well be just listing synonyms Woooow. How insightful. Basically your reply here is, PCE (as an example, of course) is direct experience. Direct experience is PCE.

For example, like experiencing a sunset. How do you exactly experience a sunset directly without any associations that goes along with that sunset, like it's brightness, the knowledge that it is the sun, its warmth, or something as basic as your spatial relationship to it, etc. Or if you are looking at it rays and seeing it spreading in the horizon, how do you experience it without any concepts framing that experience in your mind?

Since you are not going to reply to the rest of my replies beforehand, I'll just reply to the past two lengthy posts later tomorrow. .

You see, I didn't think I needed to answer you because I think you are familiar with non-conceptual experiences

When I say PCE, NDNCDIMOP, you should already understand what it is.

Sometimes the Zen master's answer is simply "you already know" or like "it's staring right in your face" - of course they don't tell this to newcomers "you already know" (or at least I think they won't, unless the master likes to see the stunned look on their faces).

Or he will just hit the floor with his staff.

More answers would be conceptualizing things... which may be necessary at first when that is the only way you can understand things, but as you discover the non-conceptual, non-dual etc then it is no longer the only mode of perception that you know.

But I'll just give an example for this post: if I poke you with a needle, you immediately withdraw your hands without even giving it a second thought. Or if hot water is poured on your hands. If I ask you, why do you withdraw? You say, "that needle was painful, I felt pain!" If you truly believe in it, you are holding to concepts, and you are establishing a perceiver and a perceived. The experience before that, and the spontaneous action, is non-conceptual, direct, immediate. Actually even speaking can be non-conceptual and spontaneous - and that is the way of Buddha.

Looking at sunset is the same. If you simply delight in the pure sensuousness and experience of it, it is non conceptual. Thats why when people just enjoy looking at a sunset or a tree or a nice scenery, it is very common at this time to experience a PCE. But PCE is not just non-conceptual experience - all attachment or clinging to a sense of identity must be in abeyance for a PCE to occur - no longer a seer seeing things, but just the experience of sight, no feeler, hearer, etc. (one can try to be non-conceptual, but still clinging to a separate witness, but in doing so they have been tricked by a subtle concept of a separate witness unknowingly due to subtle self-referencing while thinking they are totally nonconceptual)

As for How - there is no How for me, because PCE has become effortless after Anatta. But before the realization, intense mindfulness can induce PCEs as a peak experience. I won't elaborate on mindfulness, you can read it here: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 26, 2011

You see, I didn't think I needed to answer you because I think you are familiar with non-conceptual experiences When I say PCE, NDNCDIMOP, you should already understand what it is.

Sometimes the Zen master's answer is simply "you already know" or like "it's staring right in your face" - of course they don't tell this to newcomers "you already know" (or at least I think they won't, unless the master likes to see the stunned look on their faces).

Or he will just hit the floor with his staff.

More answers would be conceptualizing things... which may be necessary at first when that is the only way you can understand things, but as you discover the non-conceptual, non-dual etc then it is no longer the only mode of perception that you know.

But I'll just give an example for this post: if I poke you with a needle, you immediately withdraw your hands without even giving it a second thought. Or if hot water is poured on your hands. If I ask you, why do you withdraw? You say, "that needle was painful, I felt pain!" If you truly believe in it, you are holding to concepts, and you are establishing a perceiver and a perceived. The experience before that, and the spontaneous action, is non-conceptual, direct, immediate. Actually even speaking can be non-conceptual and spontaneous - and that is the way of Buddha.

Looking at sunset is the same. If you simply delight in the pure sensuousness and experience of it, it is non conceptual. Thats why when people just enjoy looking at a sunset or a tree or a nice scenery, it is very common at this time to experience a PCE. But PCE is not just non-conceptual experience - all attachment or clinging to a sense of identity must be in abeyance for a PCE to occur - no longer a seer seeing things, but just the experience of sight, no feeler, hearer, etc. (one can try to be non-conceptual, but still clinging to a separate witness, but in doing so they have been tricked by a subtle concept of a separate witness unknowingly due to subtle self-referencing while thinking they are totally nonconceptual)

Ugh, I see you clearly haven't looked enough at these states. When someone pokes you with a needle, it is never just "pain." There are all sorts of associative experiences that happen with it, like the location of the pain, the seriousness of it, if there are any further threats of it to the body, previous notions of being hit with a needle. (Conceptual and indirect does not mean that your feelings are formed into sentence structures in the brain, but rather that the experience is framed in a preconceived manner or when experienced, is being framed into a certain way of personal experience, a filter so to speak). Before a needle hits you your anticipated response to the event changes how the needle's pain is experienced. Have you ever had something painful happen expectedly vs. unexpectedly? It's very different. So even before the needle hits you, how you experience it is altered by all kinds of indirect factors. It's like having a whole sea of unconscious mind below the conscious mind when you are reacting to an event or surroundings.

Same with the sunset. If you are delighting in the sensuousness of it, just the brightness or the warmth, you are basically looking at the brightness and the warmth of the sun. Maybe you are not calculating the distance of the sun from where you are, but that too is another experience of the sun. Just because you are not using your brain to experience something, it does not mean that it is somehow a "direct experience" of something. You are just experiencing it through another medium, such as texture, temperature, shape, movement. In fact, what we call a sun is a composite creation wherein each of these experience of it form the idea of the sun. Remember the snake metaphor? There is no such thing as a snake to be directly experienced. Snake is an indirect idea. In fact the ideas that form the idea of a snake can also be seen as indirect ideas.

xabir2005 · December 26, 2011

Ugh, I see you clearly haven't looked enough at these states. When someone pokes you with a needle, it is never just "pain." There are all sorts of associative experiences that happen with it, like the location of the pain, the seriousness of it, if there are any further threats of it to the body, previous notions of being hit with a needle. (Conceptual and indirect does not mean that your feelings are formed into sentence structures in the brain, but rather that the experience is framed in a preconceived manner or when experienced, is being framed into a certain way of personal experience, a filter so to speak). Before a needle hits you your anticipated response to the event changes how the needle's pain is experienced. Have you ever had something painful happen expectedly vs. unexpectedly? It's very different. So even before the needle hits you, how you experience it is altered by all kinds of indirect factors. It's like having a whole sea of unconscious mind below the conscious mind when you are reacting to an event or surroundings.

Yes our latent knowledge affects our moment to moment behaviour, for example if we see snake we recognise danger and try to flee. (though it can be possible to get rid of the sense of self and fear, and let action be completely spontaneous)

However you will notice that your action is more spontaneous and thoughtless if it were experienced unexpectedly.

Same with the sunset. If you are delighting in the sensuousness of it, just the brightness or the warmth, you are basically looking at the brightness and the warmth of the sun. Maybe you are not calculating the distance of the sun from where you are, but that too is another experience of the sun. Just because you are not using your brain to experience something, it does not mean that it is somehow a "direct experience" of something. You are just experiencing it through another medium, such as texture, temperature, shape, movement. In fact, what we call a sun is a composite creation wherein each of these experience of it form the idea of the sun. Remember the snake metaphor? There is no such thing as a snake to be directly experienced. Snake is an indirect idea. In fact the ideas that form the idea of a snake can also be seen as indirect ideas.

Yes there is no 'the sun'. I never said direct experience of 'the sun' except in a figure-of-speech way. There is no 'the physical universe' unlike what AF people think.

By the way in PCE or Anatta experience you are experiencing luminosity intensely as the details and textures of the moment, such as "texture, temperature, shape, movement" - but there is no labelling of them as such, there is simply the direct experiencing. This is why the Buddha taught us to practice being aware of the solidity/softness, warmth/coolness etc of breathing sensation. After anatta you'll understand the whole purpose of teaching the four foundations of mindfulness.

Anatta is not collapsing the manifold into oneness, but experiencing (and more than that: realizing) awareness as the diverse manifestations, the textures of forms, but without establishing a self or an object of cognition. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours and forms, vivid yet illusory and empty, nothing graspable.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 26, 2011

Yes our latent knowledge affects our moment to moment behaviour, for example if we see snake we recognise danger and try to flee. (though it can be possible to get rid of the sense of self and fear, and let action be completely spontaneous)

However you will notice that your action is more spontaneous and thoughtless if it were experienced unexpectedly.

Yes there is no 'the sun'. I never said direct experience of 'the sun' except in a figure-of-speech way. There is no 'the physical universe' unlike what AF people think.

By the way in PCE or Anatta experience you are experiencing luminosity intensely as the details and textures of the moment, such as "texture, temperature, shape, movement" - but there is no labelling of them as such, there is simply the direct experiencing. This is why the Buddha taught us to practice being aware of the solidity/softness, warmth/coolness etc of breathing sensation.

It is not collapsing the manifold into oneness, but experiencing awareness as the diverse manifestations, the textures of forms, but without establishing a self or an object of cognition. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours and forms, vivid yet illusory and empty, nothing graspable.

So give me an example besides saying that it is direct. Just because one does not consciously label an experience does not mean that it is direct. We went over this when we talked about people who live with a habitual sense of self without labeling themselves as "me, me, me" time to time. Seems like the best you did in the above reply was, "spontaneous" and "unexpected." Unexpected just means something happened out of the normal sequence of habitual actions. If you have "unexpectedness" all the time, that takes away from the very meaning of the word. That's just like saying "abnormality is the norm."

Edited December 26, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 26, 2011

So give me an example besides saying that it is direct. Just because one does not consciously label an experience does not mean that it is direct. We went over this when we talked about people who live with a habitual sense of self without labeling themselves as "me, me, me" time to time. Seems like the best you did in the above reply was, "spontaneous" and "unexpected." Unexpected just means something happened out of the normal sequence of habitual actions. If you have "unexpectedness" all the time, that takes away from the very meaning of the word. That's just like saying "abnormality is the norm."

When in seeing, there is just the experience of shapes, colours, forms, without a sense of a seer, (likewise for hearing: just the sound vibrations, no hearer), for all six senses... that is NDNCDIMOP.

To someone without insight of anatta they may say something like PCE is the experience where 'I' cease perceiving and perceiving (and thinking and doing) takes place of itself, to someone who realize anatta it is seen that there never was an 'I' to cease, perceiving has always taken place of itself in itself (means in suchness, I don't imply there is ultimately 'something in itself') without a seer, feeler, doer, thinker, according to conditions.

However it should also be noted that the experience of non-doership or spontaneity may not imply nondual or anatta insight. For example when I was at the I AM phase I also experienced spontaneous activities and there is no sense of a doership, however nonetheless the sense of an agent or ultimate perceiver is still present - but it is merely witnessing the spontaneous happenings of manifestation. So non-doership is not the same as no-agent or anatta.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 26, 2011

When in seeing, there is just the experience of shapes, colours, forms, without a sense of a seer, (likewise for hearing: just the sound vibrations, no hearer), for all six senses... that is NDNCDIMOP.

To someone without insight of anatta they may say something like PCE is the experience where 'I' cease perceiving and perceiving (and thinking and doing) takes place of itself, to someone who realize anatta it is seen that there never was an 'I' to cease, perceiving has always taken place of itself in itself (means in suchness, I don't imply there is ultimately 'something in itself') without a seer, feeler, doer, thinker, according to conditions.

However it should also be noted that the experience of non-doership or spontaneity may not imply nondual or anatta insight. For example when I was at the I AM phase I also experienced spontaneous activities and there is no sense of a doership, however nonetheless the sense of an agent or ultimate perceiver is still present - but it is merely witnessing the spontaneous happenings of manifestation. So non-doership is not the same as no-agent or anatta.

From Thusness Stage 1 to Stage 7, all are about NDNCDIMOP. It is just a matter of degree of effortlessness and liberation.

Directness does not mean liberation. Even in Stage 1, there is direct experience, but only pertaining to one type of manifestation, and due to views of duality and inherency, there will still be grasping.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 26, 2011

Good. Now you understand why in the end Buddha says he hasn't said a single word.

Emptiness is merely a non-affirming negation. It negates existents while not establishing anything including a position of non-existence.

Mhmm, and it also negates itself. If the Buddha truly thought that, he must've really cut back on his insightful abilities (let's hope he wasn't, but imo, I can see how that line of thinking can be utilized as a tool). This is just logical fallacy 101 where the statement denies or contradicts itself, but believes it's making a claim. You can't say "I haven't uttered a single word," why? because you are uttering words to say that! You are being completely ignorant of the meaning communicated by the action, and the action itself. It is like a perpetual circle of reasoning or a nonsensical statement like "I am walking forward towards my back." :wacko: . You also cannot deny a statement without suggesting another form of affirmation, or a basis of your own affirmations to support that denial. It's being unaware of one's own positions and ideas and how they have been formed.

When I say cognition is illusory, I don't mean there is an existing thing called cognition, that is illusory. I mean the appearance of cognition is ultimately empty or illusory which means there is no real cognition behind the appearance of cognition - appearance means merely an empty illusion without substance.

Ok, I was trying to make sure this is what you were saying. If you were saying otherwise, we would be in a deeper hole of nonsense.

What you say above is supported with absolutely no basis. Why? Because you explained it yourself below, that "when explaining it is always in comparison - it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality." But note that this is not only the case when explaining, but also when understanding, there has to be a sense of falseness and truthfulness: Illusion is only an illusion based on the idea of non-illusion, of something real. However, when you say "cognition is illusory" there is no longer a basis for that claim because the idea that "cognition is illusory" is just another cognition. It is self-denying.

In meditative equipoise no comparison is needed because it is not through analysis.

Well, what you call meditative equipose, I can easily see as trance.

But to speak to you in terms of language, I can use pointers. The best pointer is to point to you that your notion of substantiality is false, is to negate that view of substantiality. When you have a realization that negates the view of substantiality, then everything becomes seen as illusory.

And just because it is like an illusion, it does not mean it is.

Wrong analogy. You are comparing the absence of experience of cognizance, with the presence of experience of cognizance, and saying you cannot experience the absence of cognizance since all experiences are an experience of cognizance.

I'm not rejecting the appearance of cognizance (do know that cognizance and appearance are inseparable - in seeing just seen no seer), I am rejecting the inherent existence of cognizance. So you should be comparing the view of substantiality with the lack of it, not the presence of appearance and absence of appearance. Appearance, emptiness, and luminosity are inseparable.

Uh, when did I ever say cognizance was inherent or substantial, or having a core like some "thing"? What I am saying is that the process in which you came to the conclusion seems...faulty, like what you wrote below. It's just really a careless insight into what it means when something is "inherent" or applying sound logic.

When you realize Anatta, you do not see 'All is Awareness'. You don't deny luminosity but you realize that 'there is just the breathe, the scent, the sight' and 'Awareness' is just a label collating the diverse, scattered and disjoint manifestation - there is no one awareness linking all of them together, you do not subsume everything to be one substance but see that 'Awareness' is an empty label, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, just the diverse manifestation. As an analogy: there is no river apart from flowing, wind apart from blowing, weather apart from the wetting, forming and parting of clouds, wind, etc changing moment to moment - so it is not 'All is Weather' (that is mere convention) but ultimately 'there is no The Weather' just like there is no 'The Awareness'.

The analogy falls apart in that in the case of awareness. Where have you experienced awareness elsewhere besides all these diverse appearances, the "flow"? In the example of the river, we see the action of "flowing" all the time in other forms, like in the ocean, or in our sinks, or the movement of a body. It's a label we put on a type of action that is very generally seen in other phenomena. So if the analogy is to be accurate: the "flowing" of the river would have an identical meaning to river, and be only seen in rivers and in no other phenomena. Same with wind. "Blowing" is just a very general terms that happens outside of wind. Where have you, or anyone else, experienced manifestations outside of awareness? What is the generality of the term "manifestation" that exists outside of awareness? Likely none! So you have no basis for saying awareness is not inherent to experience, since there has never been an experience without awareness.

As for your weather example, if all those things labeled weather is merely conventional, what isn't then? If you say indeed, everything is merely a label, we come back to square one, don't we? Back to the nonsense self-denying statements without basis.

Just the blowing, the flowing, the manifestation of six dependently originated cognizance.

No, you are then just talking about sense experience.

Why would you need to 'compare or contrast its substantiality' - when you realize seeing is just the sight and there is No 'The Awareness', you will have effectively understood the difference between false cognition and correct cognition in terms of anatta.

And I'm saying your realization is very very full of contradictions and nonsense.

Lucky7Strikes · December 26, 2011

When in seeing, there is just the experience of shapes, colours, forms, without a sense of a seer, (likewise for hearing: just the sound vibrations, no hearer), for all six senses... that is NDNCDIMOP.

Uh, no. That is not an example. You are just merely stating convictions. Give me an example, unless you really think when hearing there is just sound vibrations. Modern science would look at you with a lot of disbelief. I mean, where is, um, the ear, and the brain interpreting it, etc.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 27, 2011

Mhmm, and it also negates itself. If the Buddha truly thought that, he must've really cut back on his insightful abilities (let's hope he wasn't, but imo, I can see how that line of thinking can be utilized as a tool). This is just logical fallacy 101 where the statement denies or contradicts itself, but believes it's making a claim. You can't say "I haven't uttered a single word," why? because you are uttering words to say that! You are being completely ignorant of the meaning communicated by the action, and the action itself. It is like a perpetual circle of reasoning or a nonsensical statement like "I am walking forward towards my back." . You also cannot deny a statement without suggesting another form of affirmation, or a basis of your own affirmations to support that denial. It's being unaware of one's own positions and ideas and how they have been formed.

Precisely it negates itself too - emptiness is empty. If emptiness is inherently existing, something is wrong there.

Buddha: "And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

....

"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."

......

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - Namdrol

Ok, I was trying to make sure this is what you were saying. If you were saying otherwise, we would be in a deeper hole of nonsense.

What you say above is supported with absolutely no basis. Why? Because you explained it yourself below, that "when explaining it is always in comparison - it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality." But note that this is not only the case when explaining, but also when understanding, there has to be a sense of falseness and truthfulness: Illusion is only an illusion based on the idea of non-illusion, of something real. However, when you say "cognition is illusory" there is no longer a basis for that claim because the idea that "cognition is illusory" is just another cognition. It is self-denying.

You don't need something real to cognize illusion. The whole point is that there is absolutely nothing real at all. But you do need the idea of something real (the delusion of it) in order to negate it.

You see, you can only negate santa claus if there is belief in santa claus to begin with, it wouldn't make sense to tell African kids that santa claus isn't real - they don't even know there is Christmas. Similarly emptiness is an antidote, a raft, for sentient beings to abandon false views of inherent existence. It works for us because no unawakened sentient being is free from false view and attachment to self.

So when I said 'it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality.', it simply means you must have self view first in order to negate self view, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. A Buddha doesn't need to negate self view (because a Buddha has already long awakened from self view). A plant doesn't need to negate self view (because it doesn't have self view to begin with). Only sentient beings need it. So since sentient beings already have false view of substantiality, it makes perfect sense to talk about the absence of it.

Do note that you do not need something real, because there isn't, to contrast with something illusory. You just need the view, idea, of a self of something real, for the antidote to work. Sentient beings ALREADY have false view of self, thats why talking about anatta and emptiness is going to liberate them, if they investigate and discover it for themselves.

You realize cognition is empty when you realize that cognition is simply a stream of knowing activities without knower (in seeing just the seen). Here, subject-view is denied. Then a further insight reveals those activities to be dependently originated, empty and illusory as well - without a substance or core that is locatable anywhere.

I think what you mean is that you need something outside cognition to contrast illusoriness with (something real?) but you are totally missing what I meant. You don't need to look outside cognition and there is nothing real at all, you just need to investige that cognition and realize there is no cognizer, just a stream of cognition, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, and that is ultimately illusory.

Well, what you call meditative equipose, I can easily see as trance.

Trance? Absorption? Nothing of that sort... I do not need to practice to attain a state of trance or absorption. Those are altered states where effort is applied to alter the state of consciousness, whereas for me no effort is applied... It is just these plain ordinary sights and sounds... the sensate world showing itself directly moment to moment and thats all there is, or not even that bcos 'there is' would be to establish something. The best I can say is just 'suchness of seeing, hearing, without establishing a cognizer or something cognized' or 'in seeing just these shapes, colours, forms'.

And just because it is like an illusion, it does not mean it is.

I'm telling you, it is an illusion. It is completely empty and illusory.

The analogy falls apart in that in the case of awareness. Where have you experienced awareness elsewhere besides all these diverse appearances, the "flow"? In the example of the river, we see the action of "flowing" all the time in other forms, like in the ocean, or in our sinks, or the movement of a body. It's a label we put on a type of action that is very generally seen in other phenomena. So if the analogy is to be accurate: the "flowing" of the river would have an identical meaning to river, and be only seen in rivers and in no other phenomena. Same with wind. "Blowing" is just a very general terms that happens outside of wind. Where have you, or anyone else, experienced manifestations outside of awareness? What is the generality of the term "manifestation" that exists outside of awareness? Likely none! So you have no basis for saying awareness is not inherent to experience, since there has never been an experience without awareness.

Now I am not denying self-luminosity of manifestation.

I am however rejecting your view that everything is one awareness. There is no such thing as 'one awareness', in the same way that there is no such thing as 'one weather' - it is really just a label. There is no awareness apart from those diverse manifestation, each moment of manifestation completely different without any substance or metaphysical essence somehow linking them up. For example: hearing is different from seeing is different from tasting - they are not all 'one awareness' because everything arise due to different conditions.

Just like there is no river apart from flowing and no wind apart from blowing, there is no knowing without an object of knowing. To know is to know something. Knowing dependently originates.

Thich Nhat Hanh:

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

As for your weather example, if all those things labeled weather is merely conventional, what isn't then? If you say indeed, everything is merely a label, we come back to square one, don't we? Back to the nonsense self-denying statements without basis.

When in delusion, you perceive conventional as truths, when awakened, you only perceive wisdom, the ultimate (emptiness) or in other words simply suchness undeluded by mental establishments of a self or object that is inherent.

So when in delusion, you think everything is One Awareness, when awakened, there is just the sights, scenes, taste, etc, suchness, but without reifying a subjective cognizer, or a one substance manifesting as the many, or the manifold as having inherent existence - they are utterly illusory.

No, you are then just talking about sense experience.

And I am telling you there is no such thing as The Awareness apart from sense experience. Even the I AM is part of the six dependently originated awarenesses - it is non-conceptual thought.

Your idea that Awareness has some substance or ultimacy to it is a fallacy that with right view and right investigation, you will be able to see through it.

And I'm saying your realization is very very full of contradictions and nonsense.

Thats because you don't understand my realization. Edited December 27, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 27, 2011

Uh, no. That is not an example. You are just merely stating convictions. Give me an example, unless you really think when hearing there is just sound vibrations. Modern science would look at you with a lot of disbelief. I mean, where is, um, the ear, and the brain interpreting it, etc.

No, I'm just talking about the experience of it.. you can use any words you like. Words mean nothing to me, because all conventions are ultimately without substance, they do not point to something real, but that is all we can use to communicate.

By the way I never denied dependent origination - manifestation arise due to dependent origination and thus are empty.

Arya Nagarjuna:

38. When eye and form assume their right relation,

Appearances appear without a blur.

Since these neither arise nor cease,

They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.

39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,

A consciousness free of thought occurs.

These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,

But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.

40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells.

And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation,

But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience,

The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell.

41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness.

The sphere of taste is voidness as well.

These are in essence the dharmadhatu

And are not the causes of the taste consciousness.

42. The pure body’s essence,

The characteristics of the object touched,

The tactile consciousness free of conditions—

These are called the dharmadhatu.

43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all,

Are conceptualized and then superimposed.

When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known.

Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu.

44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled,

Tasted, touched, and imagined,

When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner,

All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation.

45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose,

In tongue and body and the mental gate—

All these six are utterly pure.

These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic.

Edited December 27, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 27, 2011

Lucky7Strikes · December 28, 2011

Precisely it negates itself too - emptiness is empty. If emptiness is inherently existing, something is wrong there...

Yes...and emptiness is empty is also empty which is also empty..and so on. It's is a nonsensical statements that turns and rejects itself and goes on ad infinitum. And that Namdrol quote is just stupid, I'll explain below. As for your interpretation of this being an antidote:

You see, you can only negate santa claus if there is belief in santa claus to begin with, it wouldn't make sense to tell African kids that santa claus isn't real - they don't even know there is Christmas. Similarly emptiness is an antidote, a raft, for sentient beings to abandon false views of inherent existence. It works for us because no unawakened sentient being is free from false view and attachment to self.

So when I said 'it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality.', it simply means you must have self view first in order to negate self view, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. A Buddha doesn't need to negate self view (because a Buddha has already long awakened from self view). A plant doesn't need to negate self view (because it doesn't have self view to begin with). Only sentient beings need it. So since sentient beings already have false view of substantiality, it makes perfect sense to talk about the absence of it.

But this can easily be turned the other way! For example: a "deluded" (in your pov at least) person doesn't need to negate non-self view, because he has already long been "awakened" in his self view. And how do you know if a plant has a sense of self or not, or even if it is aware? Do you know what it's like to be a plant? And if a plant is aware, it may not already have a sense of self. I sure haven't seen a plant tell me it's got an ego. So has that plant realized anatta? Is your aspiration to be "awakened" like a plant?

As for your dopey santa claus analogy that keeps coming up (you must've really taken it bad when your parents told you there was no santa claus :lol: ) whether that statement of "there is no santa claus" makes sense to the kid or not really depends on how he perceives the world. He could for instance reject that idea of santa claus, because he believes only in what he witnesses. However, if he is aware of potentialities outside of one's immediate empirical capabilities (like the existence of "snow" for an African kid), he would consider the possibility of this santa claus' existence, and maybe go on to question the man claiming otherwise, basically tracing the causes that have led to this claim. If there are inconsistencies or deficiencies in what led this man to come to the conclusion, the kid might as well say "oh, I don't know, perhaps there is a santa claus." You see, it's not mere nonsense to the kid as the statement "everything is illusory and this is the truth" is.

When you negate something, it is also a form of affirmation. "Is" and "is not" arise together like two sides to a coin, or "left" and "right." So when you say there is no "Is or is not," that that is the deluded way to perceive, then you are basically saying "is or is not," is not, which introduces the idea of "is or is not," is. Again, an infinite loop logic that happens because you are denying the very statement you are making.

Do note that you do not need something real, because there isn't, to contrast with something illusory. You just need the view, idea, of a self of something real, for the antidote to work. Sentient beings ALREADY have false view of self, thats why talking about anatta and emptiness is going to liberate them, if they investigate and discover it for themselves.

And what is the difference precisely, between "something real" and the "view, idea of something real"? And if there is no difference, isn't the view that something is "unreal" also a view, no matter how consciously or unconsciously it is stated to oneself?

You realize cognition is empty when you realize that cognition is simply a stream of knowing activities without knower (in seeing just the seen). Here, subject-view is denied. Then a further insight reveals those activities to be dependently originated, empty and illusory as well - without a substance or core that is locatable anywhere.

You can stop repeating what you believe. I am here to question how you came to that belief and why you think this is a realization.

I think what you mean is that you need something outside cognition to contrast illusoriness with (something real?) but you are totally missing what I meant. You don't need to look outside cognition and there is nothing real at all, you just need to investige that cognition and realize there is no cognizer, just a stream of cognition, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, and that is ultimately illusory.

Yes, I am saying that if you are going to say something is an illusion, you better have something to call real. If you don't, the whole meaning of the word goes down the drain. This is the case with all language that arises from relative definitions, or anything really. But in your case, there is an additional problem as I mentioned before. You are making a negating claim about a totality, i.e., everything. I'll give you a more classic example:

A man in Crete says, "This is the truth: everyone on this island is a liar." You see, that statement just sabotages itself. It cancels its own legitimacy.

And how exactly do you investigate a stream of cognition with stream of cognition? Can you see that a river is flowing as a stream of river flowing within it? This is like standing on earth and trying to see its rotation by just merely standing and looking at one's feet. Only by contrast, duality, do we know the definition of something, and not only the definition, but its identity (this is a very good argument against solipsism by the way, but that's besides the point). But more to the point...your "investigation" method has so far been , "just look!" "just look and see!". That's the only genuine backing you have had for your so called "truths." I don't really see any investigation or contemplation.

Trance? Absorption? Nothing of that sort... I do not need to practice to attain a state of trance or absorption. Those are altered states where effort is applied to alter the state of consciousness, whereas for me no effort is applied... It is just these plain ordinary sights and sounds... the sensate world showing itself directly moment to moment and thats all there is, or not even that bcos 'there is' would be to establish something. The best I can say is just 'suchness of seeing, hearing, without establishing a cognizer or something cognized' or 'in seeing just these shapes, colours, forms'.

And how does someone in a trance know he is? He doesn't. That's why it's called a trance, absorption. . Slight joking aside, there are basically two kinds of trance states. A shallow one where you know you are in a trance and remember the normal state. And a very deep one where you think the trance world is the norm. You might just be in the latter? Who knows? People believe and see and feel all kinds of stuff. To me it seems like you decided that the sense faculties were more real and "direct" than your conceptual mind and forgot to use some basic analytical skills on your own mind, namely vipassana stuff.

I'm telling you, it is an illusion. It is completely empty and illusory.

Now I am not denying self-luminosity of manifestation.

Hahahaha! So it comes down to, "Come on! I'm telling you! I know! I've seen it! It's the truth!"

I am however rejecting your view that everything is one awareness...

And I am telling you there is no such thing as The Awareness apart from sense experience. Even the I AM is part of the six dependently originated awarenesses - it is non-conceptual thought.

Your idea that Awareness has some substance or ultimacy to it is a fallacy that with right view and right investigation, you will be able to see through it.

Thats because you don't understand my realization.

...I am speechless. Whoever said anything about one/universal awareness or a separate awareness? Look, I am not suggesting to you some idea you should believe in or be converted to. If you remember, I didn't engage in this discussion because I was trying to convince you that there was some universal knower, or this One Awareness, or a cognizer. I never said any of these things...I wanted this discussion to be solely about you and all this nonsense in your rhetoric you seem to just glance over being dutiful to Buddhist ideologies and Thusness you grew up with.

Now I am not saying Thusness is wrong. I've never had a conversation with him. But what I do observe is that your process of insight is not faithful to the definition of an "investigation" and the way you present your so called "enlightened stages" is deceptive to these "zen" masters who are too ingrained in Buddhist linguistics like "emptiness" to consider their meanings sensibly. It reads nice on the outside, but as someone who has considered your ideologies genuinely and have devoted a long time to understanding and implementing them, IMO they are very incomplete and certainly lack enough credibility to be called "the truth" or "the nature of reality."

p.s. I've also noticed and now pretty sure that you often revert to quotes, resort to authority, when you can't seem to explain yourself. Your position just goes to "uh...I don't know, Thich Nhat Hanh said it, so it must be right." You have not once presented your positions in a sound logical manner. It's just been a lot of declarative statements, appeal to authority, and most annoyingly, "hey look, I see it! it's the truth I tell you!" crap.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · December 28, 2011

No, I'm just talking about the experience of it.. you can use any words you like. Words mean nothing to me, because all conventions are ultimately without substance, they do not point to something real, but that is all we can use to communicate.

By the way I never denied dependent origination - manifestation arise due to dependent origination and thus are empty.

Are you kidding me? It seems like you are too busy to give a full answer. Take your time, I don't mind waiting a day or two for an answer. But come on man, this is a bit ridiculous.

I ask for just an example from your "direct experiences" (which you say is how you experience reality all the time) that's not inferred by preconceived associations, and you give me quote by someone dead almost 2000 years ago? :wacko: Woooow. How indirect is that answer for someone who experiences everything just spontaneously a directly from moment to moment. I don't get it! Why can't you just give me examples from your own awakened state?

Hahahahaha! And this is even more strange. "Words mean nothing to me...blah blah blah" So someone who thinks words mean nothing to them writes a 450 page book on how words mean nothing to him? :blink: :blink:

And to point out another bit of insight you might have glanced over: Is experience of something entirely separate from one's knowledge of it? Because it seems like you are saying the experience of sound is different from knowledge of that particular sound. I don't think this is the case. When I hear a bell ring, along with that sound, my mind immediately filters that sound through all the knowledge I have of that bell (like whether that's an alarm clock, or just one telling the hour, whether it's in the living room or the bedroom). If that didn't happen, we would all be freaking out at everything happening around us.

Lucky7Strikes · December 28, 2011

And for a little visual break to this meaninglessly wordy discussion:

http://willaemjw.tripod.com/weekdaystargazers2.html

Edited December 28, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 28, 2011

But this can easily be turned the other way! For example: a "deluded" (in your pov at least) person doesn't need to negate non-self view, because he has already long been "awakened" in his self view. And how do you know if a plant has a sense of self or not, or even if it is aware? Do you know what it's like to be a plant? And if a plant is aware, it may not already have a sense of self. I sure haven't seen a plant tell me it's got an ego. So has that plant realized anatta? Is your aspiration to be "awakened" like a plant?

The point is that emptiness negates view of existents without establishing a position of its own (such as non-existence).

I never said he needed to negate anything other than the view of self.

Because if you negate the view of self, automatically you negate the non-existence of self, both, and neither. Why? Non-existence of self here means a self that exists and then go into non-existence. Since no self can be established (to exist) to begin with, its non-existence, both and neither is also automatically negates.

Therefore all that is required is to negate view of self.

Plant has no ignorance and potential to suffer and be reborn according to Buddhism. Trees however can be inhabited by spirits, but that is another matter altogether, and does not apply to all trees (only some).

Plants do not have buddha-nature (potential to awaken): they only have dharma nature (the all-pervasive nature of emptiness), so they cannot be awakened. However they do not have ignorance or false sense of self - because they are incapable of self-view. So they are neither ignorant nor awakened. Only sentient beings are ignorant and have the potential to be awakened, only sentient beings have Buddha-Nature (defined here as the potential to attain Buddhahood).

As for whether they have awareness of any sort, some teachers say they have, but we have to be careful here and take Shurangama Sutra's warning into account and not fall into error:

(44) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness.

As for your dopey santa claus analogy that keeps coming up (you must've really taken it bad when your parents told you there was no santa claus )

We don't celebrate Christmas here :lol:

well at least my family doesn't

whether that statement of "there is no santa claus" makes sense to the kid or not really depends on how he perceives the world. He could for instance reject that idea of santa claus, because he believes only in what he witnesses. However, if he is aware of potentialities outside of one's immediate empirical capabilities (like the existence of "snow" for an African kid), he would consider the possibility of this santa claus' existence, and maybe go on to question the man claiming otherwise, basically tracing the causes that have led to this claim. If there are inconsistencies or deficiencies in what led this man to come to the conclusion, the kid might as well say "oh, I don't know, perhaps there is a santa claus." You see, it's not mere nonsense to the kid as the statement "everything is illusory and this is the truth" is.

It's just an analogy.

Another analogy is this: you started learning English. When people say "The Weather is hot", "The Weather is good today", you thought there is a real thing called 'The Weather'. You thought it is a 'real' thing, something with tangible substance or existence. Then you realise on day 'oh, there is no The Weather as some existent thing, it is just a label for the heat, the rain, the wind, etc'.

The same applies to 'self', 'awareness', and so on

When you negate something, it is also a form of affirmation. "Is" and "is not" arise together like two sides to a coin, or "left" and "right."

Precisely as I said above.

So when you say there is no "Is or is not," that that is the deluded way to perceive, then you are basically saying "is or is not," is not, which introduces the idea of "is or is not," is. Again, an infinite loop logic that happens because you are denying the very statement you are making.

Wrong - is not does not apply, I do not say "is or is not, is not" - rather "is or is not don't apply, full stop". "Is not" (non-existence) requires something existing to begin with that could become non-existent, and in this case, the four extremes have no real existence to begin with, and so is not or is do not apply to them.

Lets make this simpler: is in my definition means existence, is not means non-existence. To say 'is' (exists) or 'is not' (is non-existent) requires a base, an existent entity to begin with. For example, before I die, the commoner might say I exist, but after death they say I cease to exist so I am non-existent. The basis for existence or non existence here is the 'self'. If there is no 'self' that can be established in or apart from the five aggregates to begin with, the existence or non-existence of self cannot be established. Is or is not cannot be established.

You see, you do not need to 'introduce the idea of is or is not' - the idea of 'is or is not' already 'exists' for sentient beings, and precisely because sentient beings are deluded by notions of existence and non-existence pertaining to a self, that the self-view should be negated and seen through by awakening. If they are not deluded (like Buddhas who are already awakened, or like plants which have no self-view), there is no need for negation. In fact all they have to do is negate the idea of an existent self - because as explained earlier, just negating existence itself already automatically negate the other 3 extremes. So there is no endless loop there.

In one moment of awakening, all false notions are negated - awakening is non-inferrential, it is not a step by step negating of something, rather in just one moment all is seen.

As Namdrol already said: Madhyamaka simply negates views of existents without establishing a position of its own, such as non-existence [is not].

And what is the difference precisely, between "something real" and the "view, idea of something real"? And if there is no difference, isn't the view that something is "unreal" also a view, no matter how consciously or unconsciously it is stated to oneself?

Something real means there is a real self, inherent, independent, separate, agenthood (perceiver, controller, etc), etc

A view of something real means like projecting there to be a real self where there actually isn't - merely delusioned to believe in it. In other words, purely imaginary without basis. It is as imaginary as the belief that moon is made of green cheese.

You can stop repeating what you believe. I am here to question how you came to that belief and why you think this is a realization.

This is not a belief, this is a realization, and I have already explained how I came to that realization.

xabir2005 · December 28, 2011

Yes, I am saying that if you are going to say something is an illusion, you better have something to call real. If you don't, the whole meaning of the word goes down the drain.

All you need is false view of reality to make a contrast. There is no need for something truly real to make a contrast (there isn't any).

Illusion simply means appearance, but without any substance or reality or tangibility to it. For example you see a mirage on the horizon - to an untrained person it may seem to represent something objective out there, like a city, but actually its just an illusory vision without a real city out there.

The "imagination that there is a real city" itself can contrast with the illusoriness of the mirage.

This is the case with all language that arises from relative definitions, or anything really. But in your case, there is an additional problem as I mentioned before. You are making a negating claim about a totality, i.e., everything. I'll give you a more classic example:

A man in Crete says, "This is the truth: everyone on this island is a liar." You see, that statement just sabotages itself. It cancels its own legitimacy.

Except when I didn't say "everyone on this island is a liar" but "everyone on this island is a liar except me". In other words, all truths (i.e. conventional truths) are ultimately false, the only truth is Ultimate Truth.

Nagarjuna:

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

And how exactly do you investigate a stream of cognition with stream of cognition? Can you see that a river is flowing as a stream of river flowing within it?

The stream of river can realize there is no thing apart from the stream of river.

This is like standing on earth and trying to see its rotation by just merely standing and looking at one's feet. Only by contrast, duality, do we know the definition of something, and not only the definition, but its identity (this is a very good argument against solipsism by the way, but that's besides the point).

I am not trying to find the definition of something objective (nor is there a subjective person to observe something objective), because precisely the point here is to see through the illusion of a Seer, that is seeing Something. There is no seer, and no something being seen. When you investigate seeing and realize that in seeing there is just the seen without a seer, and furthermore the seen is entirely dependently originated and empty and illusory, your job is done.

However, highly intellectual, Madhyamaka style analysis is not required. Bahiya got liberated by just a short concise teaching by Buddha. There are some with very dull intellect (like this monk Chunda who can't remember anything the Buddha said) who got liberated too. With all the right conditions, in one moment of seeing, you can awaken, it is not a very intellectually demanding thing. Many Zen masters awakened upon hearing a sound or seeing something, Thusness too.

The Four Foundations of Mindfulness also will lead to Arhatship in less than 7 years of practice.

But more to the point...your "investigation" method has so far been , "just look!" "just look and see!". That's the only genuine backing you have had for your so called "truths." I don't really see any investigation or contemplation.

And how does someone in a trance know he is? He doesn't. That's why it's called a trance, absorption. . Slight joking aside, there are basically two kinds of trance states. A shallow one where you know you are in a trance and remember the normal state. And a very deep one where you think the trance world is the norm. You might just be in the latter? Who knows? People believe and see and feel all kinds of stuff. To me it seems like you decided that the sense faculties were more real and "direct" than your conceptual mind and forgot to use some basic analytical skills on your own mind, namely vipassana stuff.

All that analysis is done in Buddhism is done for seeing through and rejecting views, done for letting go, not for grasping to new views like the raft analogy.

Sentient beings are the ones in trance world, since they believe in the delusion of self.

By the way Bahiya Sutta is 'vipassana stuff' and 'vipassana stuff' is not intellectual analysis. I wonder if you practiced Vipassana.

For example: you believe there is a solid thing called 'body', then you deconstruct it by investigating on bare sensate level, and discover there are only disjoint sensations without a real 'body'. This can lead to what Dogen calls 'mind-body drop off'. This is vipassana. The Bahiya sutta of investigating 'self' and breaking it down to the six senses - in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that - is also high level vipassana stuff.

Hahahaha! So it comes down to, "Come on! I'm telling you! I know! I've seen it! It's the truth!"

Yeah, and see it for yourself!

Now I am not saying Thusness is wrong. I've never had a conversation with him. But what I do observe is that your process of insight is not faithful to the definition of an "investigation" and the way you present your so called "enlightened stages" is deceptive to these "zen" masters who are too ingrained in Buddhist linguistics like "emptiness" to consider their meanings sensibly. It reads nice on the outside, but as someone who has considered your ideologies genuinely and have devoted a long time to understanding and implementing them, IMO they are very incomplete and certainly lack enough credibility to be called "the truth" or "the nature of reality."

p.s. I've also noticed and now pretty sure that you often revert to quotes, resort to authority, when you can't seem to explain yourself. Your position just goes to "uh...I don't know, Thich Nhat Hanh said it, so it must be right." You have not once presented your positions in a sound logical manner. It's just been a lot of declarative statements, appeal to authority, and most annoyingly, "hey look, I see it! it's the truth I tell you!" crap.

:lol:

Awakening all depends on each individual, and what I say or what others say doesn't matter. Engaging in 1000 pages of debate isn't going to get any nearer to true resolution.

"Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

Edited December 28, 2011 by xabir2005

Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites