Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

All metaphysical assertions can be solved/resolved/dissolved through the insight of anatta and emptiness. But things like detailed knowledge of karma, etc, maybe only a Buddha has.

Wow. So you won't even touch knowledge. Knowledge is what spiritual practice is about, not metaphysical assertions. Perhapas you should refocus on the means of practice, and focus on knowledge instead of fighting abstract assertions.

 

Buddhists are well aware that many unenlightened yogis have access to powers, past lives, etc, even evil persons like Devadatta was once praised by Sariputta (it became something of a slight embarrasment later) in his mastery of psychic powers. You do not need to be a Buddha - heck, you don't even need to be enlightened, or Buddhist, or wise, or ___ in order to achieve these powers. You just need some mastery of shamatha.

Clearly you don't know anything about "powers." Daniel Ingram said he mastered all the shamatha stages but couldn't do jack shit. He had one instance where he had a coincidence of making a teacher pick up a pen because it was in his line of vision or some trivial event like that after he entered a jhana state. Who in the theravada tradition has come out in the past years and said he had psychic powers? Powers, yea right. Psychic powers are trivial and mean nothing. You don't even know how to approach this topic, so let's drop it.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

Knowledge of past life is only one aspect of our existence. You, admittedly don't have a clue about omniscience, so how do you know what the Buddha went through in awakening? Why, just because it's written in a text?

Of course. Buddha described the process so clearly. There is no vagueness.

That's funny, because all these 13 pages, seems like you have a position to defend and assert.

But there isn't - I never put forth any metaphysical position.

That's also funny, because "you" don't exist after this moment. Then there's the next moment. So what defilements can you burn away? How can you even achieve omniscience? What progress are you going to make? For whom?

Defilement are in terms of the ten fetters. There never is a 'me' even now. There is no me. Defilements arise due to ignorance, ceases due to the cessation of ignorance. Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance, what dependently originates is empty.

I think I missed the part where you explained why and how you have come to the conclusion that cause and effect is illusory.

Because everything is empty of any independent existence, or entity, so they are illusory and non-arising.

 

Conventionally we say, cigarette and fire causes smoke. But if there is ultimately no real cigarette, no real fire, there is also no real smoke. Sentient beings establishing real entities misperceive real cause and effect.

Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Wow. So you won't even touch knowledge. Knowledge is what spiritual practice is about, not metaphysical assertions. Perhapas you should refocus on the means of practice, and focus on knowledge instead of fighting abstract assertions.

The view 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' and 'non-existence' are behind all forms of clinging. You cannot cling to something you do not perceive as existent, or rather you cannot cling when you do not perceive a 'something'. You can only cling to something you perceive as existent, and the view of 'I, me, mine'.

Clearly you don't know anything about "powers." Daniel Ingram said he mastered all the shamatha stages but couldn't do jack shit.

I do not believe his shamatha stages are the same as Buddha's. His description of shamatha jhanas are different from the Buddha. This is something I, Thusness, and many other practitioners I spoke with agree.

 

There is a difference between 'sutta jhanas' and the kind of jhanas that various teachers put forth.

He had one instance where he had a coincidence of making a teacher pick up a pen because it was in his line of vision or some trivial event like that after he entered a jhana state. Who in the theravada tradition has come out in the past years and said he had psychic powers? Powers, yea right. Psychic powers are trivial and mean nothing. You don't even know how to approach this topic, so let's drop it.

I have no idea why you mentioned Daniel. Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Yes it does. If you don't know you are going to get wet because of the rain, you are going get wet. You know you are going to get wet because you have previous experience with the rain. This isn't just spontaneous knowledge that comes up. It a built habit.

Having previous experience of rain and acting according to that knowledge may not be a conceptual inference. It can simply be a non-inferential, non-conceptual, spontaneous action. You do not actually have to conceive of the inherent existence of rain and the likes.

As for observing causality to deny A and B, you write:

 

Hmm, wait a second, a moment ago you said,

 

So then your line of reasoning is based on false perceptions, by your own words of course.

It is not contradictory. Only sentient beings perceive the real existence of cause and effects, and it is valid from the perspective of deluded cognition. It is not seen as valid in wisdom.

 

Like in a dream, you perceive the unicorn making a loud sound. You say the unicorn made the loud sound. That is valid only as conventionally observed phenomena, but that conventional truth is actually ultimately false. There is no real unicorn that caused/made a real loud sound.

Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

But there isn't - I never put forth any metaphysical position.

This is a metaphysical position:

 

"Defilement are in terms of the ten fetters. There never is a 'me' even now. There is no me. Defilements arise due to ignorance, ceases due to the cessation of ignorance. Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance, what dependently originates is empty."

 

 

So is this:

 

"Because everything is empty of any independent existence, or entity, so they are illusory and non-arising."

 

 

and this:

 

"Conventionally we say, cigarette and fire causes smoke. But if there is ultimately no real cigarette, no real fire, there is also no real smoke. Sentient beings establishing real entities misperceive real cause and effect."

[Protector]

Does this thread EVER ENDDDDDDD?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Defilement are in terms of the ten fetters. There never is a 'me' even now. There is no me. Defilements arise due to ignorance, ceases due to the cessation of ignorance.

Make up your mind, because in the next sentence you contradict yourself:

 

"Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance."

 

Because everything is empty of any independent existence, or entity, so they are illusory and non-arising.

:rolleyes: Cause and effect is not a "thing." It's not cheese or a computer. It's a description of a process.

 

Also this is just stupid. Your reason that cause and effect is illusory is because it is dependently originated, i.e. caused via conditions? So...cause and effect is illusory because its caused? You really don't know what you are talking about anymore do you?

 

Conventionally we say, cigarette and fire causes smoke. But if there is ultimately no real cigarette, no real fire, there is also no real smoke. Sentient beings establishing real entities misperceive real cause and effect.

Huh? so there is false cause and effect and "real" cause and effect? What do you mean "if" there is ultimately no real cigarette? You need to give some reasons instead of just stating ludicrous statements here and there.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The view 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' and 'non-existence' are behind all forms of clinging. You cannot cling to something you do not perceive as existent, or rather you cannot cling when you do not perceive a 'something'. You can only cling to something you perceive as existent, and the view of 'I, me, mine'.

Xabir, you are genuinely frightening me right now because this reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I am beginning to question your sanity. But to what you wrote above, clinging doesn't have to be on something you perceive as existent. Clinging is a word that describes an act of repetitiveness. So if someone is continually riding a bicycle, that person is clinging to "riding a bicycle." Riding a bicycle isn't a thing, nor does the person need to consciously construe that he is clinging to riding a bicycle all the time. Addiction works in a similar manner.

 

I do not believe his shamatha stages are the same as Buddha's. His description of shamatha jhanas are different from the Buddha. This is something I, Thusness, and many other practitioners I spoke with agree.

 

There is a difference between 'sutta jhanas' and the kind of jhanas that various teachers put forth.

I have no idea why you mentioned Daniel.

I mentioned Daniel as an example of someone who says he's gone thorough all the jhana stages. Welllll....then do you know anyone who has gone through those shamtha stages and attained the powers that you know of? Probably not. So you don't know. Let's not write bunch of speculations, ok?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Having previous experience of rain and acting according to that knowledge may not be a conceptual inference. It can simply be a non-inferential, non-conceptual, spontaneous action. You do not actually have to conceive of the inherent existence of rain and the likes.

Are you saying that knowledge arises without a cause, out of nothing?

 

Then it's not dependently originated.

 

It is not contradictory. Only sentient beings perceive the real existence of cause and effects, and it is valid from the perspective of deluded cognition. It is not seen as valid in wisdom.

 

Like in a dream, you perceive the unicorn making a loud sound. You say the unicorn made the loud sound. That is valid only as conventionally observed phenomena, but that conventional truth is actually ultimately false. There is no real unicorn that caused/made a real loud sound.

Oh, so you do perceive conventions. And you do identify (a unicorn making a noise). You do perceive movement. You just decide to label it false instead of true. Now does saying in the dream, that the unicorn is false, make the unicorn go away?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Does this thread EVER ENDDDDDDD?

It'll end soon. .

[xabir2005]

Does this thread EVER ENDDDDDDD?

[xabir2005]

Make up your mind, because in the next sentence you contradict yourself:

 

"Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance."

There is no contradiction. Because ignorance and defilement dependently originates, there is therefore no ignorance and defilement. What what is conventionally called ignorance and defilement dependently originates, is realized to be empty of inherent existence.

 

Nagarjuna:

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen,

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation,

Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

 

Something that is not dependently arisen,

Such a thing does not exist.

Therefore a nonempty thing

Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

:rolleyes: Cause and effect is not a "thing." It's not cheese or a computer. It's a description of a process.

Cause and effect is established based on a real cause and a real effect. Since there is no real cause and no real effect, cause and effect is illusory, i.e. unestablished.

Also this is just stupid. Your reason that cause and effect is illusory is because it is dependently originated, i.e. caused via conditions? So...cause and effect is illusory because its caused? You really don't know what you are talking about anymore do you?

Because what dependently originates is empty, so cause is empty, the effect of a non-existent cause is also empty.

Huh? so there is false cause and effect and "real" cause and effect? What do you mean "if" there is ultimately no real cigarette? You need to give some reasons instead of just stating ludicrous statements here and there.

There is no real cigarette just as there is no real anything at all. Whatever dependently originate is empty of any substantial, independent, findable existence. Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

This is a metaphysical position:

 

"Defilement are in terms of the ten fetters. There never is a 'me' even now. There is no me. Defilements arise due to ignorance, ceases due to the cessation of ignorance. Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance, what dependently originates is empty."

 

 

So is this:

 

"Because everything is empty of any independent existence, or entity, so they are illusory and non-arising."

 

 

and this:

 

"Conventionally we say, cigarette and fire causes smoke. But if there is ultimately no real cigarette, no real fire, there is also no real smoke. Sentient beings establishing real entities misperceive real cause and effect."

Emptiness means the rejection of the position of existents, a non-asserting negation. I do not assert non-existence, only reject the notion of existence.

[xabir2005]

Xabir, you are genuinely frightening me right now because this reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I am beginning to question your sanity. But to what you wrote above, clinging doesn't have to be on something you perceive as existent. Clinging is a word that describes an act of repetitiveness. So if someone is continually riding a bicycle, that person is clinging to "riding a bicycle."

No. I mean mental clinging requires the view of an existent. You can continually ride a bike without any clinging or attachment at all. Repetitive action is not the sort of clinging that is harmful/opposite of liberation. Of course endlessly riding a bicycle may be tiring and all that, but by itself does not prevent liberation.

Riding a bicycle isn't a thing, nor does the person need to consciously construe that he is clinging to riding a bicycle all the time. Addiction works in a similar manner.

Addiction requires you to perceive something - pleasure, whatever, as existent, and furthermore conceived as satisfactory, and so on. Craving cannot arise without an object of craving, and the object of craving is always a view of something that 'is' - even if that object is seen as something that fades, still, it is seen as something that is existent, satisfactory, graspable, etc.

I mentioned Daniel as an example of someone who says he's gone thorough all the jhana stages. Welllll....then do you know anyone who has gone through those shamtha stages and attained the powers that you know of? Probably not. So you don't know. Let's not write bunch of speculations, ok?

I don't even know why you are talking about this. I was just saying that it is doctrinally established that powers require shamatha skills (well there are exceptions like powers from spells and mantras - this is one of the reason why Buddha didn't want to showcase powers because people may misunderstand him to be a practitioner of spells and mantras). Also, there are living people who have some powers and they all say that shamatha is necessary - simpo being an example, there are many others. Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Are you saying that knowledge arises without a cause, out of nothing?

 

Then it's not dependently originated.

Never said that. I only said that conceiving conventions is not necessary for action.

Oh, so you do perceive conventions. And you do identify (a unicorn making a noise). You do perceive movement. You just decide to label it false instead of true. Now does saying in the dream, that the unicorn is false, make the unicorn go away?

You did not understand me. What I meant is that the entire conceiving of a unicorn, a noise, and a unicorn causing the noise is deluded cognition, i.e. conventional truth. If you realize emptiness you stop conceiving them.

 

I do not conceive of conventions or movement.

 

Sentient beings perceive deluded cognition (conventional truths), awakened beings (pre-Buddhahood) switch between deluded/undeluded cognition, while fully awakened Buddhas only perceive wisdom/undeluded cognition. I am not yet a Buddha but ignorance no longer holds that much sway on me. The analogy used is like a jar emptied of contents but the smell lingers.

Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no contradiction. Because ignorance and defilement dependently originates, there is therefore no ignorance and defilement. What what is conventionally called ignorance and defilement dependently originates, is realized to be empty of inherent existence.

Are you saying dependently originated things don't exist? On what grounds? A thing can be dependently originated and said to exist, since well, you still experience them don't you? And they have an effect on your experience of life...so...by the definition of something "existing," that it is experienced and have a tangible effect, it does in fact, exist.

 

 

Cause and effect is established based on a real cause and a real effect. Since there is no real cause and no real effect, cause and effect is illusory, i.e. unestablished.

What the...huh? ...

What kind of reasoning is this:

 

1) cause and effect is based on....

2) cause and effect

3) there is no cause and effect

4) therefore cause and effect is illusory

 

....

 

Because what dependently originates is empty, so cause is empty, the effect of a non-existent cause is also empty.

No..I'm sorry, what is "cause and effect" dependent on again? Also, cause and effect is not there is "cause" and there is "effect." It's describing a process. What is the process of cause and effect dependent on?

 

There is no real cigarette just as there is no real anything at all. Whatever dependently originate is empty of any substantial, independent, findable existence.

Things don't have to be independent to be real. That's not a requirement for existence: be independent or have a core. Nor is it a requirement for it to be found. A cigarette can be found.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. I mean mental clinging requires the view of an existent. You can continually ride a bike without any clinging or attachment at all. Repetitive action is not the sort of clinging that is harmful/opposite of liberation. Of course endlessly riding a bicycle may be tiring and all that, but by itself does not prevent liberation.

Addiction requires you to perceive something - pleasure, whatever, as existent, and furthermore conceived as satisfactory, and so on. Craving cannot arise without an object of craving, and the object of craving is always a view of something that 'is' - even if that object is seen as something that fades, still, it is seen as something that is existent, satisfactory, graspable, etc.

Well, then you don't know much about addiction. Craving of objects is called obsession. Addiction is descriptive of behavior. Clinging does not require any dual view of an object or an existent. If you are riding a bike for a lengthy period of time because that act is giving you certain pleasures (note, you are not craving after the pleasure, but pleasure is a side effect of riding the bike) binds you to that act, it becomes habitual. Habit and clinging are very similar in how they operate, generating a feeling of safety consistently doing one thing, even if it is not pleasurable, is addiction. Addiction is basically being entrapped in one mode of behavior and not wanting or not even seeing an alternative. After a while you forget that you are even addicted; it become s a lifestyle. Again, it's descriptive of action, a mode of being, not necessarily targeting an object.

 

I don't even know why you are talking about this. I was just saying that it is doctrinally established that powers require shamatha skills (well there are exceptions like powers from spells and mantras - this is one of the reason why Buddha didn't want to showcase powers because people may misunderstand him to be a practitioner of spells and mantras). Also, there are living people who have some powers and they all say that shamatha is necessary - simpo being an example, there are many others.

You are the one who brought it up. And now you reveal, unsurprisingly, that you were speaking on "doctrine." Please don't do that, pretend you have knowledge of something when all you have to show for is doctrine.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Never said that. I only said that conceiving conventions is not necessary for action.

You said it arises spontaneously. Spontaneity describes something that arises without an apparent external or internal cause, but is self-generated. Unless you meant, "it's not spontaneous, but experienced as if spontaneous."

 

You did not understand me. What I meant is that the entire conceiving of a unicorn, a noise, and a unicorn causing the noise is deluded cognition, i.e. conventional truth. If you realize emptiness you stop conceiving them.

 

I do not conceive of conventions or movement.

Are you saying you don't conceive any conventions at all, like the keyboard, the computer, or your own face, or a chair? Then how do you function at all? Spontaneously? Then you are again saying the action or the knowledge of the action is not dependently originated but self-originated.

 

Sentient beings perceive deluded cognition (conventional truths), awakened beings (pre-Buddhahood) switch between deluded/undeluded cognition, while fully awakened Buddhas only perceive wisdom/undeluded cognition. I am not yet a Buddha but ignorance no longer holds that much sway on me. The analogy used is like a jar emptied of contents but the smell lingers.

Whoooaaa there.

 

Here we have another issue. So if a sentient being sees a chair, his response (not necessarily verbal), is that "hey that's a chair, it's something to sit on, it's brown, etc." And when an awakened person sees the chair, he switches between, "hey that's a chair" vs. "....." And the Buddha doesn't see a chair at all?

 

Are you saying the chair doesn't exist? Then can the Buddha still sit in it?

[xabir2005]

Won't do detailed reply from phone.

 

What dependently originates is empty of any core, substance, inherent reality whatsoever. Hence, empty and illusory.

 

Spontaneous does not mean causeless, it means no independent agent/controller.

 

My life is like a lucid dream - dream doesn't cease but I do not conceive anything as real. Actions are non conceptual and spontaneous.

 

Addiction is habitual craving. Craving requires object of craving, even if it is a sense of security.

 

If there is no independent core, it means existence cannot be established. Existence requires an entity as a base. If an entity cannot be established, the four extremes of existence, non existence, both and neither don't apply.

 

I only said you do not need to be enlightened to have powers. You derailed the discussion.

Edited January 16, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Won't do detailed reply from phone.

 

What dependently originates is empty of any core, substance, inherent reality whatsoever. Hence, empty and illusory.

 

Spontaneous does not mean causeless, it means no independent agent/controller.

 

My life is like a lucid dream - dream doesn't cease but I do not conceive anything as real. Actions are non conceptual and spontaneous.

 

Addiction is habitual craving. Craving requires object of craving, even if it is a sense of security.

 

If there is no independent core, it means existence cannot be established. Existence requires an entity as a base. If an entity cannot be established, the four extremes of existence, non existence, both and neither don't apply.

 

I only said you do not need to be enlightened to have powers. You derailed the discussion.

Please don't reply for replying sakes. Go take your time, come back, and write an actual reply.

[xabir2005]

Actually I did address your points.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually I did address your points.

It was obviously a hurried and unthoughtful reply. You missed out on a few other points I addressed, namely your faulty line of reasoning for the dependence of cause and effect on cause and effect, the perception of conventions (not concepts) vs. spontaneous action, the example of the experience of the chair by three different perceptions, the extreme conclusion one draws that experience does not exist from the principle of dependent origination (a lucid dream can be said to exist if its affects are tangible and lasting). As for your point on addiction, you just simply restated what you wrote before without replying to my points.

 

But more irritatingly, these are mere statements. I can write a load of statements without explanations and just say they are true. If you are not going to support your statements it is no longer a discussion, but both sides merely making statements.

 

If I write: there's a flying spaghetti monster who is the creator of this world

 

And you write: that's false, because a, b, and c

 

And I write back: no that's not true, because there's a flying spaghetti monster who is the creator of this world

 

That's not a discussion worth having. As for the powers, you mentioned the shamatha stages as methods of attaining powers, but it turns out you were just talking out of your ass. You don't know anything about them.

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

It was obviously a hurried and unthoughtful reply. You missed out on a few other points I addressed, namely your faulty line of reasoning for the dependence of cause and effect on cause and effect, the perception of conventions (not concepts) vs. spontaneous action, the example of the experience of the chair by three different perceptions, the extreme conclusion one draws that experience does not exist from the principle of dependent origination (a lucid dream can be said to exist if its affects are tangible and lasting). As for your point on addiction, you just simply restated what you wrote before without replying to my points.

 

But more irritatingly, these are mere statements. I can write a load of statements without explanations and just say they are true. If you are not going to support your statements it is no longer a discussion, but both sides merely making statements.

 

If I write: there's a flying spaghetti monster who is the creator of this world

 

And you write: that's false, because a, b, and c

 

And I write back: no that's not true, because there's a flying spaghetti monster who is the creator of this world

 

That's not a discussion worth having. As for the powers, you mentioned the shamatha stages as methods of attaining powers, but it turns out you were just talking out of your ass. You don't know anything about them.

Entity of its own means an independent essence of its own.

 

Activities that dependently originates is empty of being an entity of its own. Since activities dependently originate and ceases upon the cessation of conditions, they have no self-essence (svabhava)

 

No establishing of conventional reality is necessary for action. A Buddha's knowledge is also not in terms of establishing entities.

 

As for powers, I merely wanted to bring out the point that powers are of course not solely attained by those who are enlightened. There are people who focus their practice on powers without any wish to attain enlightenment. This is actually a common knowledge. Anyway, I did not make the claims about powers, and I do not see why there is a problem with quoting scriptures which I see as an authority on these matters.

Edited January 21, 2012 by xabir2005