Thursday, June 13, 2013

Auto-Luminosity: In Seeing Just The Seen


Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:
> In seeing, just the seen

Seriously, it's in that quote.

What is seeing? Seeing is that which we experience as our field of vision. As such, it is ALREADY alive with vivdness aka. awareness, consciousness, luminosity, knowing.

What we call seeing comes pre-known*. No entity or further process is needed for seeing "to be seen/known". By definition, the seen needs no knower or seer — it has ALREADY been seen, known. Just taste it as an adjective: SEEN.

One can not experience not-yet-seen or not-yet-known seeing, and there is no need for a seer to see the seen, because it has ALREADY been *seen*.

What we are presented with, our experience — the seen, the heard, the cognized; in short, the known aka. all knowables — is the product of subject meeting object, which is activity or process or dance. All we can know is such activity, change, impermanence. Any (construed) subject or object is superfluous and completely lacking in direct experience. In addition, subjects and objects are interwoven to the degree that they can not be separated from each other. Yet they can, yet they can not, swing and swoosh and land in the middle.

Quite simple and quite straight forward: what seeing is, is that which needs no further subject nor object. That interaction has already been worked out. And that last sentence is merely conceptual scaffolding — no such entities are available in direct experience, except as thought, designation.

Seeing is that which has already been seen. The seen is color and shape.

No subject nor object construed.

* ie, auto-luminous.
Like ·  · Unfollow Post · April 15 at 2:17pm near Sandnes, Rogaland
Seen by 86
Soh, Delma Mc and 2 others like this.

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Please share your thoughts about this 
April 15 at 2:18pm via mobile · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: A little correction to the third last sentence:

Seeing is that which has already been seen and as such needs no subject or seer.
April 15 at 2:37pm · Edited · Like

Justin Chapweske: I agree 100%. I don't know why people insist on layering any concepts on top of this, especially after they've had clear direct realization of this themselves. (I also like "auto-luminous".)
April 15 at 2:25pm via mobile · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: (That little device there, "auto-", I find is so useful for many reasons. Please use it  )
April 15 at 2:38pm · Edited · Like

Albert Hong: This is what is meant by self arising.

The seen only references itself as it self. Nothing else before nor after nor even itself. Complete onto itself.

There is a degree of intensity to this which is like seeing feels as if the universe is seeing. The view of dependent origination is very helpful to realization full
Motion as everything.
April 15 at 2:44pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Stain, I like the analysis, the part where you say 'the seen, the heard, the cognized; in short, the known aka. all knowables - is the product of subject meeting object'... are you saying the known requires a subject (knower) to be a 'known' (object)... i.e. the known is the byproduct of conceiving of a subject (knower)? Because you say it's product of subject meeting object, but then you're also making your main point that the phenomena is auto-luminous. I guess I'm not clear as to whether you're suggesting that the subject-object dichotomy is part and parcel or if it appears later due to imputation and designation.

In that one part you seem to be suggesting (i) the known i.e. all knowables are product of subject meeting object. But then you seem to also be suggesting that (ii) the known is auto-arising and that the subject meeting object occurs only after designation begins.
April 15 at 6:06pm via mobile · Like · 1

Joel Agee: Isn't the known = the cognized, and as such distinct from the seen, heard, felt, etc.?
April 15 at 9:38pm · Like

Joel Agee: Or is seeing already, as you say, pre-known?
April 15 at 9:39pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, the part you're referring to is provisional, scaffolding.

> Are you saying that the known requires a knower to be known?

The known is by definition already known and as such requires no knower. Introducing, construing a knower is not parsimonious. Further, 'knowing' is precisely this 'known'.

One never experience a not-yet-known nor a waiting knower, which eventually contact — only auto-luminous known/knowing.
April 16 at 1:51am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: This seems to be just another "overlay" or "story" regarding experience. If we look how experience at the level of sensory experience occurs within the brain, which is the case for all of us, we get a different insight as to how sensory experience actually occurs. What is occurring is a "transfer of information" through different processing centers. First from the outer "field", like light from the sun as photons stimulating the rods in the retina. This information is transfered through the optic nerve to the back of the brain. The information gets processed through many integrative and participative areas of the brain. Then the brain creates two general components: A "someone" who is having the experience and a 3D image of the imagined meaning of the sensory event. They arise together. That gives the sense that knower and known are the same event. But they aren't at all. First is the sensory stimulation then much later the "observer". Of course there is something else present as well. There is a capacity in which this all taking place, that remains always undetected, yet present.
April 16 at 2:00am · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Knowing is the always already known. No knower in knowing.

Seeing is the always already seen. No seer in seeing.
April 16 at 1:58am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: You can say there is no "seer" , but the brain almost always creates one free of charge... 
April 16 at 2:02am · Like

Jackson Peterson: A Zombie is a good example of "seeing without a seer".
April 16 at 2:04am · Like

Jackson Peterson: What the Buddha taught is that the brain's "imagined seer" is an illusion. But who knows that? There is a more subtle Knower in all experience that is not brain generated, and yet is always non-dual in its knowing...
April 16 at 2:06am · Like

Soh: Hi Stian, has doubtless insight arisen that 'seeing is always already seen, no seer in seeing'?
April 16 at 2:16am · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: What you write Jackson, is it not just another story, too?

Isn't your zombie scenario just discursive thinking? Have you been a zombie? Do you remember your direct experience as one?

• • •

> If we look how experience at the level of sensory experience occurs within the brain, which is the case for all of us, we get a different insight as to how sensory experience actually occurs.

When we look at a tree, there is only the seen tree, already alive with vividness – no subject needed.

When we look at how the brain works, does our vision/seeing/thinking suddenly become different, just for this occasion?

• • •

'How sensory experience actually occurs' *is not* seeing, hearing, knowing. It is thought, which also comes auto-luminous, no thinker required.

One just does not experience "a "transfer of information" through different processing centers", etc. Seeing for anyone does not consist of photons, rods, retina, optic nerve, back of the brain, integrative and participative areas of the brain. Thinking about it does, sure, and I'm not denying science.

Jackson, I've gotten the impression that you understand the distinction between thinking and not thinking, given your insistence on ending conceptualization. But are you not here conflating simple seeing with thinking? All what one sees is colors and shapes.

Subjective seeing vs. objective thinking?

• • •

It seems to me you are implying you understand the Bahiya Sutta, Jackson (why else would you try to refute it?). But I don't understand how you can, when you write this:

"What the Buddha taught is that the brain's "imagined seer" is an illusion. But who knows that?"

The known is always already known. Not by any "who", but by itself, no knower needed, ie. auto-luminous.

It seems to me you are not applying these instructions globally. You're letting bits and pieces of your experience escape, and as they do, they are reified.

I mean, before you write it off as "just another story", why don't you give it a try?

• • •

I wish I was more articulate so that I didn't have to use so many words to discuss this. I'm sorry if this long comment bored anyone.
April 16 at 3:56am · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Soh, no, the insight has not become doubtless, if by "doubtless" you mean something like "always obvious in experience".
April 16 at 3:00am · Like

Soh: Doubtless insight is an instantaneous immediate realization of what is always already the case.... after which there is no doubt anymore that this is always already the case... it is distinct from mere nondual experience which can come and go. Like once you see through the notion of santa claus, that insight can't be unseen
April 16 at 3:02am · Edited · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Let's leave what I am pointing at as just "something to think about to take a look at". Often we say and think grandiose concepts that may only be a "perspective" valid only in its moment and context. But when we try to turn the Bahiyya Sutta into a philosophy, then we are missing the point. We reify "the just seeing and the just hearing" and in doing so, we void the intelligent Buddha Nature as a non-dual Knower and place sensory phenomena on a higher plateau. The entire event is the display of this Knower, not the display of the "seeing and hearing". The Knower and the seeing and hearing are non-dual, yet not the same. The clouds in the sky are non-dual, yet not the same. The reflections in a mirror are non-dual regarding the mirror, yet are not the same. Sights and sounds appear in awareness always in a non-dual state, yet they are not the same. Can we say there are only clouds but no sky? Can we say there are only reflections but no mirror? Can we say there are only sights and sounds without a "perceiver"? The continuum is called Mind.
April 16 at 3:30am · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Jax, u miss the point of Bahiya Sutta. It is not about "reifiyng" senses which would be just opposition of your reification of "non-dual Knower".
April 16 at 4:39am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, you didn't address any specific point of my comment. Why is that?

Are you suggesting that I reify the instructions in the Bahiya sutta by entertaining it as "grandiose concepts" and "turn[ing] it into a philosophy"?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

• • •

> We reify "the just seeing and the just hearing" and in doing so, we void the intelligent Buddha Nature as a non-dual Knower and place sensory phenomena on a higher plateau.

The Bahiya sutta is not limited to sensory phenomena, it explicitly deals with non-sensory phenomena.

By contemplating the Bahiya sutta, one can not avoid the luminosity of immediate experience.

• • •

> The entire event is the display of this Knower, not the display of the "seeing and hearing".

This is a perfect example of reification according to your definition, because you "place [the knowing quality] on a higher plateau".

• • •

This discussion of "seeing is precisely the seen" seems to stem from a misunderstanding.

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but it's like you don't understand what is meant by "seeing" in this context. I might comment when this is more clear to me.
April 16 at 4:53am · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Jackson, what was meant iny my post by "we simply don't find any basis"? it meant that no "nothing", no "space", no "thing", no "it", no "who", no "spiritual beingness", no "Self", no "The Awareness", no "Source", no "Mirror", no "non-dual Knower" is found apart from ignorance

"Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,"
~ Visuddhimagga XIX

That aware space you mention so much, Jackson, I have recognized (I've pursued direct path of self-enquiry). I've reached direct realization of "what is your original face" as shapeless, self-cognizing radiance. Self-knowing space-like presence.

That realization of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss when there is no distance between "me" and Existence-Consciousness-Bliss took place. When one realizes there is no "ME and Existence-Consciousness Bliss", but only self-knowing Existence-Consciousness-Bliss it is effortless, unfabricated, non-conceptual and immediate experience. That intimacy and taste of existence cannot be forgotten. It is like "kiss from beloved" u have mentioned but not exactly; I speak about situation in which there is no more "ME" and "Beloved" but only Beloved remains. Kiss so powerful that "me" dissolved and I noticed that "Kisser and kissed" is one.

I've also experienced sinking into nothingness like Nisargadatta Maharaj points out as attempt to integrate the fact that there are perdiods where not even Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is experienced.

I've misinterpreted Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Buddhism in overall. Remaining in "natural state" seemed me to just remain in nirvikalpa samadhi, absorbed into non-conceptual thought. When I write "non-conceptual thought" I mean I AM/Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This is "stage 1" in Thusness' ladder of "seven stages". http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Then I came across Thusness' and Soh's blog. It showed me that Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is golden chains. Further contemplation resulted in fluctuation between experience of "One Mind" and "No Mind"; fluctuating between substantial and insubstantial non-duality. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/substantial-and-insubstantial-non.html

Jackson, you generally speak a lot about what is called by Thusness' and Soh as "One Mind" => for example quote of one of recent posts of yours "The Knower and the seeing and hearing are non-dual, yet not the same. The clouds in the sky are non-dual, yet not the same. The reflections in a mirror are non-dual regarding the mirror, yet are not the same.". I have experienced this substantial non-duality directly. This is stage 4 in above mentioned ladder.

Problem behind "substantial non-duality" is that there is powerful attachemnt to though realm. "One Mind" I mentioned above is last resort to hold to this framework.

"The world is illusory;
Brahman alone is real;
Brahman is the world. "

You need to directly discern and understand why realization that is expressed by this stanza is from the very beginning based on attachment to certain cognitive mistake. Otherwise there is absolutely no possibility of understanding Buddhadharma. Countless yogic practices were developed to enhance intensity of experntial realization of this stanza. I've realized directly first two sentences which is Self-Realization and then experienced directly meaning of third sentence. It is "One Mind"/stage 4 in Thusness' ladder. I've directly experienced that Mind/Presence is mirror that is non-dual with phenomena but yet independent of them. So I directly realized meaning behind this pointer.

But I have also experienced no-mind and realized difference directly. In "No Mind" there is no more "mirror" that is "non-dual with senses".

That mirror is recognized to be just one of the senses; particular manifestation in though realm; non-conceptual thought. So that above statement about brahman is just based on delusion and attachment to this non-conceptual thought and reifiying as "mirror", "Self", "non-dual Knower", "Mind", "Awareness" etc

"In actuality, that non-conceptual thought is not any more special than a passing sight, a passing scent!" 

But anatta isn't experience of "no mind" in which self/Self/"awareness"/"mind" is forgotten and only non-dual senses remain without center or reference point. Realization/insight isn't peak experience.

Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr...[Cut off website preview]
See More
April 16 at 5:05am · Edited · Like · 6 · Remove Preview

Piotr Ludwiński: So what is anatta and how does anatta apply to non-conceptual thought/I AM/Existence-Consciousness-Bliss/Brahman?

Through contemplation on right view and anatta it was recognized that "Divine Being" too, as it was discerned directly, is simply self-luminous activity without any trace of agent, doer behind it. In other words, non-dual shapeless presence is just non-dual experience in thought realm.

It is not "more important" than non-dual sound, non-dual scenery, non-dual thoughts, non-dual tastes, non-dual odours, non-dual sensations.

It is not "mirror" that is "non-dual" with senses; it itself is just experience in one of the senses.

I recognized that it is "always so". There is no agent, no linking basis, no source, no "The awareness", no "self" no "Self", no "the Intelligence" that is BEHIND self-knowing phenomena. "Existence-Consciousness-Bliss" is included in phenomena, for it's position of mirror and non-dual knower is just because of wrong view and framework that is based on cognitive mistake and assumption.

I understood why Soh used word like "phenomena-ing" instead of "phenomena".

If someone would like to grasp "nothingness" as last resort to be able to conceive "I", "me", "Source" and "The Awareness". Well, formless samadhis are also just self-luminous activity without any agent, source, self, Self, Intelligence behind it whatsoever. Only lack of realization and insight into anatta results in reification like Nisargadatta did.

There is neither "the awareness" nor "Spiritual Intelligence" behind non-dual self-luminous activities (non-conceptual thought that is reified as Brahman/Self I also include in this). "Awareness" and "Spiritual Intelligence" are just label on these self-luminous activities without agent. "Mind" is just label for this self-luminous arising and passing. Just like "weather" is label for various activities without doer behind them.

Two stanzas about Anatta by Thusness' are leading to two equally important aspects of anatta;

"There is thinking, no thinker
There is hearing, no hearer
There is seeing, no seer

In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors."

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Realization of just one without the other is incomplete. Anatta is only understood and realized when there is discernment and recognition of what both of these point to.

""He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding.[7] Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you."

So using this quotation as example"He has not comprehended it" can take place when one realizes second stanza but doesn't realize what is exact meaning behind first one...

(...)

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you."

In realization of meaning of both of above Thusness' stanzas on anatta, there is no more place for "Source", reified "Spiritual Intelligence". There is no place for any phenomenon or nonumenon behind self-luminous non-dual activity.
First-fold emptiness simply means that there is nothing behind non-dual phenomena-ing.All views that are contained in above statements by Buddha are simply recognized for what they are; delusions that have lack of the insight into anatta as their cause.

Moreover, posing a question in a way you do, was directly refuted by Buddha; http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/phagguna-sutta-to-phagguna.html read this Jax.

Buddha isn't stressing this simply because of his whim, but simply in realization of anatta it is clearly seen why exactly these questions are flawed from the very beginning.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."
- Visuddhimagga XIX.

"Infinite Consciousness", "Infinite Space", "Nothingness", "Neither perception nor non-perception" are included in "empty phenomena roll on".

Speaking about "Non-dual Knower" show lack of true understanding and realization into anatta. Why? Because it is still disease of conceiving. Attachment to see reality based on subject, object, agent, doer, source, manifestation, self, Self.

In other words, by speaking that there is no agent behind self-luminous activity I also include experience of self-cognizing Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (which is called "I AM" in Thusness "seven stages", due to my former conditioning I use similiar terminology.

But what exactly is realization of anatta? Using two stanzas by Thusness' realization is direct insight that it is "always already so". To apply this to my own spiritual seearch it means that from the very beginning of my journey there was no agent, no linking basis, no source, no "the awareness" no reified "non-dual knower" or imagined "spiritual intelligence" behind this. It applies to my delusion of personhood, to my delusion of reifications of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, to my delusions of sinking into nothingness, to my delusions of substantial non-duality ("One-Mind/stage 4 in Thusness "seven stages").

That is why anatta is one of "three marks of existence". It isn't stage or experience. It is always already so.

AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

"Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness."

Thus, we came back to Bahiya Sutta:

‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness."


Awakening to Reality: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfect
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Simple brilliance~thank you for this insightful sharing that is mirrored innerly...[Cut off website preview]
See More
April 16 at 5:03am · Like · 7 · Remove Preview

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Thank you so much Piotr.
April 16 at 5:12am · Like

Soh: Yes very well written! Thanks for sharing.
April 16 at 6:17am · Like

Jackson Peterson: The "non-dual knower" is not a reification or imputation. Its simply the "unestablished" in which, as which, all appearences self-appear. Some call it God, some Self, some Bramhin, some Emptiness, some Dharmakaya, some Buddha Essence, some Clear Light Mind, some Mahamudra, some The Great Round Mirror, some Rigpa. We penetrate this mystery when we recognize the one who is aware of all this. The "just seeing and hearing" is exposing the registering consciousness as being the registered "with no remainder". This is a good way to eliminate the imposition of a self experiencer. But having done that, what enlivens your attentiveness to this question?
April 16 at 7:11am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: You can't understand this through a clever use of words, no matter the author.
April 16 at 7:13am via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Jax, I don't know what do you mean by "unestablished" but statements that there is "it" in which appearances self-appear is simply in contradiction both with sutras and my own experience. It seems that you refute Buddha's statement; "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.". So, you simply refute Buddhism altogether. What is then the point of your using buddhist concepts as you like to back up your eternalistic and inherent claims?
April 16 at 7:22am · Like · 2

Soh: As per Stian's OP: "What is seeing? Seeing is that which we experience as our field of vision. As such, it is ALREADY alive with vivdness aka. awareness, consciousness, luminosity, knowing.

What we call seeing comes pre-known*. No entity or further process is needed for seeing "to be seen/known"."
April 16 at 7:26am · Edited · Like · 3

Piotr Ludwiński: It is just assumption and clinging to mental fabrication that non-dual self-luminous activity need point of reference of "mirror" and "knower". ""Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Sabba Sutta: The All
www.accesstoinsight.org
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, no...[Cut off website preview]
See More
April 16 at 7:37am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Piotr Ludwiński: Arguments about "direct yogic experience of spiritual dimension beyond All" are of no use against Bahiya Sutta and Sabba Sutta; it is just reification of empty self-luminous activity (including formless jhanas that are still samsara and nothing beyond "in cognized only cognized". Disease of conceiving and imputation on experiences that can't be established as "reality", "source", "mirror" or "spiritual dimension".
April 16 at 7:40am · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: -
> The "non-dual knower" is not a reification or imputation. Its simply the "unestablished" in which, as which, all appearences self-appear.

"Appearences [that] self-appear" does not need anything "in which" to appear or "as which" to appear as.
___

What do you think of this article, Jackson:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html
April 16 at 7:54am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: Jackson - why don't we just use Occam's razor here and not assume a subtle Knower. "Experience IS." is about the only thing we can say for certain. We should assume that we never directly experience anything substantial, and thus even if something substantial or unchanging "exists" in "reality" there is no way to truly know it from within our virtual reality. Since this experience reality is all that we are, then we most discard any other existent reality as not knowable and thus not real.
April 16 at 8:03am via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: Experience is the only thing experienced. Experience is the activity of an illusory something we call neurons. We can never truly "know" neurons because we are limited to just experience.
April 16 at 8:06am via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: To be more Buddhisty, we should assume that any subtle Knower is empty illusion.
April 16 at 8:12am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Here's how we can verify a Knowingness. Lets drop "knower" as it implies a "self" for some. In experience there is just experience. This works. If ego or reified self is present that's just the experience. Nothing needs to be changed or altered. Nothing is realized. However experience itself is a known happening. If we say it its just neurons firing that's not the Buddhist view as there is no nirvana possible. However when this known "knowingness" incarnates it manifests involuntary characteristics: unconditional love, profound wisdom, non-dual view, empowered energy and spontaneous creativity. It also has no sense of a personal self. These are some of the native qualities of the Knowingness in knowing of Itself.
April 16 at 8:44am via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Something certainly is realized, and it doesn't require a realizer or a knower.
April 16 at 8:48am · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: I don't care about the Buddhist view. Why do you?
April 16 at 8:52am · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Realization of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss equals no sense of personal self. After realization of I AM no personal self remains. But that is not anatta. 

"However when this known "knowingness" incarnates "

this too is refuted by Buddha;

(...)

"As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

(...)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse
www.accesstoinsight.org
This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth.
April 16 at 8:53am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Justin Chapweske: Piotr Ludwiński - Harsh find 
April 16 at 8:54am · Like

Logan Truthe: Thanks guys, the other day i was just wondering: how does a thought know itself - or how does a thought know it's thinking, this thread helps so much
April 16 at 9:04am · Like · 2

Albert Hong: Joel Agee

They are distinct and unique. Thought consciousness is quite distinct from say taste consciousness.

And even so they are unique amongst themselves. One thought is new and fresh and completely unrelated to another thought, unless they are joined through projection.

Something like that.
April 16 at 9:15am · Like · 1

Joel Agee: Thanks, Albert. What I was groping for with my question is the way sense experience and cognition go so closely hand in hand they seem indistinguishable, at least most of the time. The color green is immediately recognized as "green," so concept and percept meld into one. There is hardly an interval between raw visual experience, pure "seeing," and the recognition of a "doorknob." By sustained contemplation of, say, a tree, the summary concept "tree" falls away, but then other knowns take its place: movement, different shades of color, etc. All these are conceptual as well as perceptual events. -- The question this leaves with is whether in seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, and cognizing there is ever anything that is not "already known."
April 16 at 10:03am · Like

Justin Chapweske: Joel - Take out the notion of time and this problem disappears.
April 16 at 10:06am via mobile · Like

Joel Agee: That's true. It's a problem only to the conceptual mind! 
April 16 at 10:21am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness of time has always been very key in any peak experiential insights I've had.
April 16 at 10:23am via mobile · Like · 2

Justin Chapweske: For satiating conceptual curiosity, also notice that each thought moment presents itself as fully complete. A single moment of thought can somehow create an entire assumed reality and it need not build it up a cohesive story over time. Its as if each thought simply assumes that there is a real basis for that thought even though it isn't simultaneously accessing that basis in that moment. Its like if I think the word "ocean", I am somehow totally confident that I know what that means, even before ideas like "water", "ships", "waves", "fish" are actually brought to mind. As those related ideas are brought to mind, there is the feeling as if they were already there in the original "ocean", but I do not believe that they actually were.
April 16 at 10:59am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, you missed the dialectic. I was speaking of experience pre-realization. Realization is when the Knowingness is known. But there is no entity that has a "realization".
April 16 at 11:00am via mobile · Like

Logan Truthe: "In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors." 
In knowing, just known
April 16 at 11:49am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Quantum physicist and working colleague of Albert Einstein, David Bohm, felt the universe is thought. Since he considered the universe to be a single hologram, that means thought is holographic. That means ALL of reality is contained in each thought.
April 16 at 11:52am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: "Just the seeing and hearing" is perfect clarity. The seeing and hearing as containing the total universe is the mystical wisdom.
April 16 at 11:55am via mobile · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: I doubt the Bohm theory is "true" from a substantialist perspective, but from within this illusory virtual reality that is just experience, it seems plausible enough.
April 16 at 12:01pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: Jackson - I like what you just wrote because it comes from a (empty) first person perspective. I bristle at third person omniscient statements that presume truth beyond direct immediate experience.
April 16 at 12:04pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: I like "This is ..." statements much better than "There is ...", though I am sure I am quite guilty of the latter.
April 16 at 12:05pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: I bristle at all "clung to" presumptions outside of direct experience by the one talking only to himself..,
April 16 at 12:06pm via mobile · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: Jackson - That is fair, in general, but I think on this specific forum you should give the benefit of the doubt that people here can check in for themselves and see what can be verified.
April 16 at 12:10pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: I in no way ever disbelieve or disregard your experiences or insights, I just question whether they have meaning. If they are relative insights, then I will judge them through my own personal lens of pragmatism, which again assumes no absolute omniscient truth.
April 16 at 12:12pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Actually Bohm's theory has current "legs" in Quantum theory today. Especially when you factor in Quantum Information models. In the current model, there is no energy or matter, only mass-less information. If that information is not received and processed in a brain or mind, it makes no sense to describe an objective universe "out there." This is not metaphysics, but rather current quantum understanding.
April 16 at 12:12pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: I was agreeing with you Justin 
April 16 at 12:13pm via mobile · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: I am glad that scientific theory is gaining greater understanding, but lets never forget that this is just thoughts from sentient beings that can't escape the experience cage in which they exist.
April 16 at 12:13pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: Dharma really needs new language features that signify lens, paradox, etc much more clearly.
April 16 at 12:15pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: It doesn't help that a lot of us don't believe our own bullshit and can switch stances mid sentence.
April 16 at 12:15pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: Ah, I misread what you wrote. Silly word thingies.
April 16 at 12:17pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoding_Reality

Decoding Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information is a popular science book ...[Cut off website preview]
See More
April 16 at 12:29pm via mobile · Like · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson: Dharma is not a materialist model as you suggest, rather Dharma is a spiritual model of reality.
April 16 at 12:31pm via mobile · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: Could we say that non-dual experience shows us that there is *only* meaning, even though we may conclude that the experience showed us that meaning doesn't exist?
April 16 at 12:37pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Justin Chapweske Not sure, but I see it in reverse of Soh. In seeing there is only awareness appearing as the seen. In the hearing, there is only awareness appearing as the heard. The experience of seeing and hearing is the awareness of the seen and heard. Awareness is appearing as experience, without any separation. Experience is the awareness of it.
April 16 at 2:10pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The difference is that you're interpreting 'awareness' as a capacity which manifests or projects itself; 'appearing as the seen' or 'appearing as the heard'. Where, in contrast, the point being made by 'in seeing just the seen' etc. is that, that which is imputed as awareness cannot be found apart from that which is imputed as 'the seen'. 

So the latter is not suggesting that there is a capacity which is emanating itself 'as' manifestation, but rather that manifestation (seen, heard etc.) is precisely of itself. It's substantiated vs. unsubstantiated nonduality (the latter actually contradicting nonduality as an inseparablility, since there is no union, as Soh mentioned in his post the other day; 'in seeing there's just seen without a seer... this goes beyond seer-seeing-seen inseparability').
April 16 at 2:56pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Perhaps it was the 9th Karmapa that asked: "when a thought appears to cease, and one now is simply aware in absence of the thought; did the thought disappear and now a separate awareness appeared? Or was the thought actually itself awareness?
April 16 at 3:19pm via mobile · Like

Justin Chapweske: From the perspective of This without the Here or Now, nothing appears or disappears.
April 16 at 3:58pm · Like

Robert Dominik: I've came up silly metaphor but there is a possibility that it might be helpful so I'll post it (or I am simply wrong and someone will correct me): Let's suppose that you are right Jax and the seen or the heard (or seeing or hearing - from this perspective there is no dichotomy between the seeing and the seen) is awareness. We could say that the seen for example is like a painting and the awareness is like the paint that constitutes the painting. But is the paint different from the painting? Is it something else? Are they both the same thing? If we assume that there is painting we should also assume that there is certainly paint involved. But I agree with Kyle that we cannot find this which is imputed as awareness apart from that which is imputed as the seen. We cannot find the paint outside of a painting. Why? Because even some random shapes created with a little paint form a painting - no matter how grotesque or subtle it looks. Even if we just spill the paint on the floor then it will create a painting. So there is no paint to be found apart from a painting and no awareness to be found apart from that which is seen. We tend to be mistaken because our ignorance very often turns "what is cognized" or some other forms into some ultimate brahman-like awarenesss that stands behind everything. So people view their mental obscurations as a glimpse of something ultimate that stands behind everything... but it is just another empty form we should not be attached to. 

PS: The above metaphor seemingly has a flaw. Because in our daily life we can in fact find the paint outside of the painting. Paintpot may contain paint and also there is a tool called colour palette... BUT... Even if there is some paint that is not inseparable with the painting... it needs other things to be present. So the metaphor works quite well because we can clearly see that even if we'd like to think that there is some brahman-like awareness that preceeds every form, exists alone in itself... we should acknowledge that it would need some other things and conventions just like the paint needs a paintpot 
April 16 at 5:59pm · Edited · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: I am not trying to criticise your insight Jax but I would be more careful with the use of words. In my opinion you insist too much that there is this awareness which sort of creates everything from itself. 

Firstly I find it a little unskillful because there are a lot of so called teachers representing the Neo-Advaita movement who do satsangs and talk a lot about the awareness that is supposedly the ultimate ground of being. Most of them does not look enlightened to me (or all of them)... but hey... maybe it's just me XD 

Secondly we should remember about the arūpajhānas. Being concentrated too much on things like awareness or consciousness, considering them to be the final insight and being sure that they are some mystical, self-contained basis of the whole Universe IMO leads to reincarnation in the four formless realms. For example if you are absorbed in the so called the infinite space then the formless realm of the infinite space is what awaits you. Among the four arūpajhānas there is the pinnacle of the samsaric existence - the sphere of "neither perception or non-perception". So even being absorbed in something so spectacular yet so subtle and so discrete as "neither perception or non-perception" will do no good in the buddhist quest for truth  Actually it can be quite detrimental to the practice in the future lives because in the four formless realms one cannot receive dharma ;P

We should all learn from the example of the Buddha's second teacher Udraka Rāmaputra who has reached this highest formless absorbtion and considered it to be the enlightenment but as we all know was wrong and his only achievement was being born again... in the highest realm of samsara but still... not attaining perfection. This example is very good because we can suspect that Udraka Rāmaputra was among the finest masters of the vedic religion. Probably the finest master of the vedic religion of those times was not enlightened (at least not in the buddhist sense). And as we all know hinduism and advaita come from the vedic religion and so does the brahman 
April 16 at 6:06pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

Jackson Peterson: Robert Dominik, you are certainly correct, there is no awareness regarding the paint and the painting imputed. But I am not saying that at all. I am saying the the "Knowing" of the paint and the painting is never defined by the paint or the painting. The "Knowing" is the changeless creativity that manifests as paint, painter and painting. That changeless Knowing as the creative source, is never contained, its more like the art gallery in which all of this is taking place. Its the space of appearance not the appearance. They are non-dual, but not the same. In Buddhist terms: The Dharmakaya never steps outside of its changeless nature, yet presents its potentials non-dualistically, like reflections in a mirror. However the mirror is not an existing, substantialized entity, nor is it completely non-existent. In fact it is always "unestablished" and empty as regards its own "entity-ness". Theistically, you could say all appearances are the "Mind of God", like God having a day dream that in no way affects the pure nature of God in the day dreaming. We are all Buddhas having a playful and creative day dream of not being "Buddhas". What harm is there in that? The entire day dream and its host of consequences and characters is as empty as the awareness in which it the dream is occurring.
Wednesday at 2:09am · Like

Kyle Dixon: The idea that there is a knowing 'of' the paint or painting is an abstraction. It's true conventionally, but in actuality the 'changeless knowing' is only ever what is immediately apparent. The dharmakāya isn't the changeless knowing but is what is revealed in the recognition of emptiness... knowing empty, known empty... Both imputations.
Wednesday at 2:26am via mobile · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: Dharmakāya isn't brahman.
Wednesday at 2:28am via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: The Dharmakaya isn't emptiness, because emptiness is just an imputation. I would say that Dharmakaya is "unestablished" Brahman, the Intelligence that pervades and manifests as all and everything.
Wednesday at 2:30am · Like

Jackson Peterson: There is no paint and painting without the awareness of the paint and painting. Why do you and Soh love to leave out the most important and necessary part? Are you afraid if you see you are the Knowing, that you might get paint on your hands?
Wednesday at 2:33am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: " Neither the aggregates, nor different from the aggregates,
The aggregates are not in him, nor is he in the aggregates.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What is the Tathagata. " http://landofenlightenedwisdom.org/download/middle_way_chapter22.pdf
Wednesday at 2:39am · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: " Those who develop mental fabrications with regard to the
Buddha, Who has gone beyond all fabrications.
As a consequence of those cognitive fabrications,
Fail to see the Tathagata. "
Wednesday at 2:41am · Like

Jackson Peterson: If you haven't recognized directly,( not only) theoretically, your Natural State of awareness to be the pristine Dharmakaya, changeless and perfect, then that is our dis-connect.
Wednesday at 2:41am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, I agree 100%! Nice quotes!
Wednesday at 2:43am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: How does your agreement relate to the fact that you reify "non-dual Knower" "IN" which non-dual phenomena appears? => "The aggregates are not in him, nor is he in the aggregates." // I may be wrong, but this statement is contradictory to your claims like "There is no paint and painting without the awareness of the paint and painting.".
Wednesday at 2:46am · Edited · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: Emptiness of awareness means that it is simply label on non-dual phenomena; they are neither display of "awareness" nor they are non-dual with "awareness". "Awareness" is neither their source nor is it their subbstance. "Awareness" is neither mirror for myriad non-dual phenomena nor is it ultimate witness of them. These myriad non-dual phenomena are just called "awareness"... // Awareness is like "weather". You can't say that raining and temperature happen "IN weather" or "weather is IN raining and temperature. You can't say that "weather" is their substance. Weather is just label on myriad activities and phenomena
Wednesday at 2:52am · Edited · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: "To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

~ Dogen

"To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening."

~ Dogen

Views that there is some phenomenon/nonumenon/source/mirror that word "awareness" refers to... are simply due to lack of understanding of emptiness and interdependent origination.
Wednesday at 2:56am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, nothing is reified. Its simply like space,its as it is, "beingness", you always are, but no characteristic is permanent as the continuum is always "unestablished". When the mind dissolves, this space of Knowing is apparent without any imputation taking place. Its called gnosis. You can't reason your way into gnosis.
Wednesday at 3:08am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: I can't say anymore that I am this space-like beingness. This space-like "beingness" itself has been seen as self-luminous activity without agent behind it. It isn't mirror, Knower, source or purest identity of any kind. I had funny idea yesterday. Haha. Here it is; if someone really want to call this shapeless self-cognizance as "Brahman", then I would say that it is simply "brahman-izing" without agent and doer behind this. And this activity is neither more imporant than self-hearing sound of refrigerator nor is it "mirror" for it.
Wednesday at 3:17am · Edited · Like · 3

Piotr Ludwiński: "Its simply like space,its as it is, "beingness", you always are,"

In anatta absolutely no trace of identity remains; not even beingness discovered in gnosis. When this is realized via insight one is finally clear why reality simply cannot be seen through even the most sublime and most divine kind of "papanca".

Where only arising and passing without any agent behind them remain it is discerned that reality has nothing to do with subjects, objects, source, manifestation, self, other, Self, entities, being, non-being, knower, knowing, known etc. 

"When the mind dissolves, this space of Knowing is apparent without any imputation taking place. Its called gnosis."

That space-like presence is not imputation. I don't deny vividness of this experience at all.

What is the problem is reifiying of this particular experience and clinging to it as "Self, "mirror", "Knower", "Beingness", "substance", "source" etc. Without imputation it is mere appearance that cannot be determined and established.

Experience of non-conceptual thought itself isn't imputation and isn't negated. What is refuted is simply imputing it with attributes, characteristics and role of "mirror", "substance", "knower", "Self".

In fact experience of this beingness is too interdependetly originated, empty, selfless, impermanent, unsatisfactory cognizance.
Wednesday at 3:50am · Edited · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: Maybe let's try something more nagarjunic for instance. Jax you state that there is this awareness, this beingness, this space-like entity (or neither entity or non-entity and so on - still you insist that there is some underlaying knowing quality behind all the phenomena). I'd ask you again - is this awareness different from the manifestations (is awareness behind what is seen, heard etc. something else than what is seen, heard etc. and can exist on it's own)? In your opinion... if we strip every form and manifestation, if we take everything away... will be there any awarenesss left in the end? 

At least for me it's a little more like with the moving objects. We can surely agree that there are some moving objects and they all share this quality known as the movement (let us put aside the relativity of the kinesis for the sake of the argument :P). It's similar to what you state that all the manifestations share this quality known as the KNOWING. BUT THERE IS "BUT"! It's not only that we cannot find a mover behind the movement but apart from the moving objects we cannot find the movement itself. For example seeing a car that is moving we can see it's movement. But if there would be no car... where is the movement? So for me it's quite similar with this knowing quality you describe. I can agree that in the seen, heard etc. there is some knowing quality but I will disagree with a statement that says that this knowing quality is something that exists completely independently and is simply real on its own. But hey - I might be wrong XD

Also you refuted my metaphor with the paint and the painting and turned this knowing quality simply into something larger than the paint and the painting. Something that contains them both much like an art gallery is a container for all the paintings. But let me ask - is there any art gallery to be found apart from the paintings, the paint used for these paintings, the furniture, the walls of the gallery's building and so on? Also is this art gallery a collection of those things? For me if we analyse this we will realise that if there was any art gallery it would be simply empty ^^ You can make even bigger and larger containers to contain the whole gallery - then I can again point to the same problem concerning these containers. You will then say that the knowingness is like a bigger, ultimate container (which some might call God) that contains all these containers... We can play a fractal game but we will not escape this basic problem of the emptiness and dependent origination. Sure - I could have written this much earlier but I had thought that the metaphor with the paint and the painting is quite convenient. So please when you answer my questions connected with the movement metaphor take this into consideration and do not fob me off stating that this knowingness contains all the movement, moving objects and so on 

I have one last question for you Jax. Let's say that you will answer me and will write that if we throw away "everything" then there will be some knowigness left at the bottom. What is then known by this knowingness? Most brahmanists say that if all the illusory is dropped then this knowingness knows itself. For example Advaita points out to the ultimate Self (all the other selves are illusory in regard to this one and only Self) and states that in the end there is no yogi but all that is left is the Self (Brahman) aware of itself (it's like knowingess knowing itself). But is this really valid? Is it really so? From my point of view not (yet I do not deny that I still have much practice and insights left), hence I've used the example of Udraka Rāmaputra who was left with some very, very subtle quality, very discrete abosrbtion which he considered to be the enlightenment. But as we all know the last teacher of Siddharta Gautama has not attained nirvana. He simply was born again the formless realm of "neither perception or non-perception". Something so subtle that we cannot even express this in words and concepts (only use a pointer like "neither perception or non-perception") is still not the end of the journey. That's why I feel that so many people argue with Din  Because saying that there is nothing to be done and we are left in some state that isn't possible to be grasped with concepts is not nirvana. It's simply a formless absorption... True - a bodhisattva attains formless absoprtions but is not born in the formless realms. 

So that's why I would be very careful with declaring victory and opening a bottle of champagne because we have reached jhana of "neither perception or non-perception". And let's not be too proud and arrogant. Most people who suspect themselves attaining the highest formless absorption are nowhere near it (from a conventional point of view it's quite a remarkable achievement) - some people simply get stuck on lower jhanas (infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness) or even attatched to some lower forms of ignorance. It is a little funny and a little sad that tens of years of meditation, various yogic practices may not lead us to nirvana but only to some formless realm of existence after which we continue our mindless journey through samsara. And what is also worth noticing is that even such a remarkable achievment as this of Udraka Rāmaputra is not the Englightenment but simply the highest and the purest form of ignorance (and hence representing the peak of samsaric existence in buddhist cosmology). I would even risk calling it the root of ignorance because a yogin who attains the highest formless realm is left with absorption which is free of any variations and notions of consciousness, infinite space, nothingness, form etc but there is still the false notion of selfhood. Very subtle but yet there is this *something*. 

This may not be easy to acknowledge, even may be shocking for some (there were bramhins who died of heart attacks when listening to the message of Buddhadharma)but when accepted is *quite* liberating.
Wednesday at 6:41am · Edited · Like · 3

Justin Chapweske: Very well said Piotr Ludwiński.
Wednesday at 8:27am · Like

Justin Chapweske: Robert Dominik - I love the moving objects analogy! That is a new one for me.
Wednesday at 8:28am · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: -
> There is no paint and painting without the awareness of the paint and painting. Why do you and Soh love to leave out the most important and necessary part?

Spot on. Yes why do they leave that part out?

The OP and many comments here explain why.
Wednesday at 11:27am via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Robert Dominik, yes, there is a divine Consciousness that exists in absence of creation. Everything is that, like waves on the vast Ocean. We are little foam and bubbles on some infinite wave, yet of that Ocean. Its appearing as us seeking It. There are no others. Its giant "hide and go seek". This is experienced by all mystics,including the experience here. No one is authoring any of it, its all spontaneously happening. There is no one. Just this great Singularity that's deepest essence is unconditional Love, and nature is Clear Light. Hey, I am just offering my report as how its seen and self-revealed here. I share methods that others can use to get seriously beneath the superficial surface of intellectual speculation. We can find hints and indications within life events as revealed in moments of synchronicity and clairvoyance. Life is embedded in a dimension of total meaning and brilliant Intelligence. _/|\_
Wednesday at 12:11pm via mobile · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: "yes, there is a divine Consciousness that exists in absence of creation." <- Jax, what is point in your attempts to use buddhist concepts to support your claims of established, eternalistic entity/intelligence behind five skandhas? You preciesly establish inherent existence, source, eternal Self, agent - there is no place for any of these in "Right View"; first point in Noble Eightfold Path Buddhadharma is neither about "kiss from Beloved" nor about romantic fabrications and reifications of mystics. I'll just quote: ""Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Maybe you should just use frameworks that are openly eternalistic and just give up attempts to disguise Brahman as "Dharmakaya"? I don't mean here that "you are wrong", but there is no point in trying to brahmanize dharma, when you can just operate on frameworks that are openly eternalistic and suited to your view (when you feel to share your view with people and guide them to direct experience)? Instead of using buddhist framework to present view that is incompatible with it's doctrine?

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile
www.accesstoinsight.org
This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is con...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Wednesday at 12:47pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Jackson wrote:
"The Dharmakaya isn't emptiness, because emptiness is just an imputation. I would say that Dharmakaya is 'unestablished' Brahman, the Intelligence that pervades and manifests as all and everything"

This is a perfect example of conflating dzogchen with vedanta. The dharmakāya is the epitome of emptiness, and of course emptiness is an imputation, the dharmakāya is as well, we are implementing conventional designations to communicate. Dharmakāya is absolutely nothing at all like the brahman of vedanta, established or unestablished. The dharmakāya is a complete and total freedom from extremes and unlike the brahman, it is not the 'intelligence that pervades and manifests as all and everything' since in dharmakāya nothing has ever arisen, dharmakāya is knowing reality to be unborn and non-arising.
Wednesday at 12:52pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: You need to taste the Third Turning of the Wheel teachings directly and discover your True Self, rather than remain within the tight and barren confines of the First and Second Turnings. The True Nature is always empty of self-nature, yet is never empty of its eternal attributes. We are spiritual beings in a spiritual dimension, sacred and most sublime. We can taste this when just "seeing and hearing" are known absent of an imputed "seer" and imputed "hearer".
Wednesday at 12:55pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: And what is "True Self"? After integrating anatta and emptiness/DO there is neither option to reify Existence-Consciousness/Bliss (I AM/Brahman) and formless jhanas as True Self, nor option to see inherent "the awareness". If one is deluded about first and second turning it is obvious that third one will be used to support one's eternalistic and inherent claims. So what "True Self" there is?
Wednesday at 1:04pm · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: "Once one pronounces the words "emptiness" and "absolute", one has the impression of speaking of the same thing, in fact of the absolute. If emptiness must be explained through the use of just one of these two terms, there will be confusion. I must say this; otherwise you might think that the innate original clear light as absolute truth really exists." <- 14th Dalai Lama
Wednesday at 1:15pm · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, Third Wheel is really the domain of mystics not intellectual speculators. An indicator of actual realization is the dominance of unconditional Love in ones inner and outer mandala.
Wednesday at 1:22pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: The premise of that argument presupposes that the emptiness of a 'True Self' is an intellectual speculation and that the 'domain of mystics' i.e. direct experience somehow suggests a True Self. Not the case at all.
Wednesday at 1:26pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: When you realize the True Self as mentioned by the greatest Zen masters, then you will let go of all these "Buddhist frameworks" that apparently aren't helping you discover the True Self to be Unconditional Love, as it establishes Itself in the hearts of all who truly penetrate the mystery.
Wednesday at 1:31pm via mobile · Like

Robert Dominik: But how will you react Jackson to claims of Buddhists from various schools involving the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma that it does not refute or render the previous two turnings useless and does not contradict them as it only describes the quality of the experience being suchness with no imputations rather than pointing out to some ultimate reality? Also many scholars tend to remind that the Tathagatagarbha is only a way of positvely speaking about the Enlightenment in order to avoid nihilism and people getting scared of Dharma thinking it to be explaining the reality in a manner that some may consider to be too negative for them. Also there is a reason why buddhist mystics and esoterists stress the importance of the right view and understanding of emptiness before further practice involving "mystical stuff". There is also Nagarjuna who did the most to burn the ignorance of eternalist views which had started to infect various schools. How would you adress all those problems Jax? I am curious. And also I do not see how emptiness of self (the Big Golden Self does not escape emptiness) would contradict unconditional love towards all beings 
Wednesday at 1:35pm · Unlike · 3

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, That's all well and good if that's your experience.. In contrast, my experience has revealed that there's never been anything at all that can be considered a self, much less a True Self, other than conventional dissimulations.
Wednesday at 1:36pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: It must be understood that the insight of anatta is to realize the essence and nature of what we call Awareness, not to deny it. The problem with Jax is the reification instead of seeing Mind as simply an imputation or label pointing to the obvious luminous manifestation. Therefore, no free and liberating way of directly apprehending suchness.
Thursday at 7:25am · Unlike · 4

Justin Chapweske: After reaching the end of seeking, I see no need to go after any True Self. I am, however, fully comfortable *within* the illusion to play around with any concepts whatsoever, but to ever posit those concepts as absolute seems unnecessary at best and a cause of seeking/suffering at worst.
Thursday at 9:39am · Like

Soh: For me, I would say that it is seeing through the illusion of a Self or I, there is no inherent 'Self' that can be sought after or clung to... substantialist grasping and seeking naturally ends there as a result of realization.
Thursday at 9:52am · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, No True Self? Then who is writing these replies to me? Since your not the imputed self, nor the "True Self", then who is writing and sharing what is coming under the name "Kyle"?
Thursday at 2:40pm via mobile · Like

Albert Hong: Jackson Peterson

Do you read anything anyone has written for the past week?
Thursday at 2:49pm via mobile · Unlike · 3

Jackson Peterson: No Soh, Mind is not just a label pointing to obvious luminous manifestation. That's your confusion. Mind is pointing to that which "Knows". Luminous manifestation comes and goes, knowing is stable and recognizable outside of luminous manifestation. Self-Recognizing Wisdom is not dependent on luminous manifestation in order to self-recognize. What you seem to not fathom is this "self-recognizing" wisdom. The true nature of Mind is not a label, but actually is "self-recognizing wisdom". "Just the seen and just the heard" points out anatta, but not "self-recognizing wisdom". Bahiya only got half-enlightened! 
Thursday at 2:51pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Albert Hong, who's asking? 
Thursday at 2:52pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: An imputation, a convention, a collection of habits. Just like you.
Thursday at 2:54pm via mobile · Like · 3

Albert Hong: Whose asking is a moot point.

Its an invalid question because it presupposes a subject.

Its better to ask how.

But there is no who because there is only activity. And activity isn't even it because thats a metaphor that seemingly point to something that seemly exists yet when examined no thing is found.
Thursday at 2:54pm via mobile · Unlike · 4

Jackson Peterson: Justin Chapweske, there is no True Self to seek! You are always the True Self whether you pretend otherwise or not... 
Thursday at 2:57pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Jax, Bahiya's enlightement was confirmed by Buddha. Maybe you will propose that Buddha too was half-enlightened because he didn't reified that non-conceptual thought?
Thursday at 2:57pm · Like · 1

Albert Hong: OP's post sums it up quite finely on why who is moot.

Its a balance between essence, nature and energy.

Most people emphasize clarity and need emphasis on essence. Etc.

Asking who only leads to clarity without exploring essence.

But anyone could figure that out even intellectually after listening/reading the convos here.

Its the same goddamn point over and over again people.
Thursday at 2:59pm via mobile · Unlike · 3

Justin Chapweske: Jackson, then pragmatically speaking, why is the idea of True Self useful if there is no suffering after realizing no self?
Thursday at 2:59pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: What I call "non-conceptual thought" and "I AM" is that self-recognizing wisdom. The illusion that it is stable is like illusion of furniture in your room that appear to be "static". To propose that this non-conceptual thought is "stable" you must conceive three times, arising, abiding. and ceasing.
Thursday at 3:07pm · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon:
What you are saying is that you are nothing beyond the five skandhas. That means two things: there's no nirvana possible for you and the dissolution of the five skandhas is annihilation of awareness, like a rock. Sounds like something to look forward to!
Thursday at 3:14pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Justin Chapweske, the idea of "True Self" is never useful. Its just what's left after realizing anatta.
Thursday at 3:15pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński. How you define "self-recognizing wisdom" is completely not "self recognizing wisdom" known here or as taught in Dzogchen or Mahamudra. Your thinking like a Gelugpa! The Gelugpa postulate there has to be a "thought" present to know the non-conceptual. "Self-recognizing Wisdom" is not a thought at all.
Thursday at 3:20pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html Jackson, please, read and contemplate this sutta carefully with open mind and heart, this time not looking for confirmation of your current view

Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha
www.accesstoinsight.org
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in th...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Thursday at 3:20pm · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, what you're suggesting is that there's a rope 'beyond' the snake.
Thursday at 3:22pm via mobile · Like · 2

Justin Chapweske: Annihilation of awareness is what I expect. Through imputation I believe that I have non-experienced gaps in experience where absolutely nothing occurred. It was a fine "death" as absolutely nothing happened, so no problem.
Thursday at 3:27pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Jackson, you are misreading me. I have already elaborated on this. By self-recognizing wisdom I mean self-cognizing self-awareness. Shapeless, radiant presence that is self aware. I called it "non-conceptual thought" because it is just particular manifestation in one of six entries.
Thursday at 3:31pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, I am suggesting there is "knowing" a rope and a snake experience, not something beyond.
Thursday at 3:32pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: That is why I called it "non-conceptual thought". Because it is just manifestion in mental consciousness that is reified as Self, Brahman and Divine Consciousness. This space-like beingness...
Thursday at 3:32pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, the True Self is not a "reification". How can you reify the changeless "unreified" and changeless "unestablished".
Thursday at 3:36pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Ok it's clear now thank you Kyle, Stian and Justin! I am now sure you all believed beyond the five skandhas is the condition of annihilation of awareness. This is the danger of studying Mahdyamaka and Abidharma without a realized teacher. The view slips into nihilism. I have no more questions regarding our differences. Thanks!
Thursday at 3:41pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "What you are saying is that you are nothing beyond the five skandhas. That means two things: there's no nirvana possible for you and the dissolution of the five skandhas is annihilation of awareness, like a rock. Sounds like something to look forward to!"

Actually, my own experience tells me that the very fact that there is nothing found beyond the five impermanent, unsatisfactory and selfless skandhas is end of suffering.

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all." Visuddhimagga XIX."

It isn't annihilation of self/Self/Awareness, it is just realization that there never was one from the very beginning.
To be clear I don't mean finding "infinite space", "infinite consciousness", "nothingness", "neither perception nor non-perception"; that would still be samsara.

That not finding any phenomenon or nonumenon beyond five skandhas, no "the awareness", no "I", no "source", no agent, no subject is anatta. That is how Bahiya was instantly liberated.

""Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.""

When there is no me there, neither here nor yonder nor between the two. I realized that this, just this is the end of stress. Homage to Buddha!

"the idea of "True Self" is never useful. Its just what's left after realizing anatta."

actually, your claims confirm the fact that you haven't realized anatta. Anatta isn't realization of impersonal space-like presence which is reified as Self/Divine Consciousness/Brahman/"The Awareness"/"Non-dual Knower".

"MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:
‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace. 

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? 

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’"
Thursday at 3:44pm · Edited · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: "How can you reify the changeless "unreified" and changeless "unestablished"." ask yourself. Since that statement itself is reification.
Thursday at 3:42pm · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: Your belief that there IS something CHANGELESS is reification and imputation itself. It's like with I/Self/"The Awareness". The root of the problem is not reifying it with four extremes, reifying it with being empty or non-empty, changeless or impermanent. The root of the problem is conceiving that there is indeed basis for these imputations.
Thursday at 3:49pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew Horn the eternal debate about whether to describe the deathless/unfabricated element in positive or negative terms (conceptual terms which human beings created to refer to characteristics of the fabricated skandhas in human experience) is thankfully pointless, but it can lead to some interesting insights. the deathless is beyond 'somethingness' and beyond 'nothingness'.
Thursday at 3:48pm · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: How does knowing constitute a True Self? Why is it knowing 'of' a rope and a snake. Where is the snake, rope or knowing beyond imputation? Why does 'knowing' receive precedence in the proposed ontological hierarchy?
Thursday at 3:46pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, I agree anatta has nothing to do with realizing "True Self". Anatta is realizing the self is an illusion. When that realization occurs, the one then functioning in life, is the True Self.
Thursday at 3:47pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, another approach then: how can you successfully reify space other than in your imagination? I am saying the same.
Thursday at 3:49pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, space is changeless, so why not "knowingness"?
Thursday at 3:50pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, the knowing is the only constant in the equation, ALL your snakes, ropes and ladders are variables. This is pointed out in Dzogchen "Direct Introduction". Not knowing this causes minds to see big black spiders climbing on their ceilings, not just snakes! 
Thursday at 3:54pm via mobile · Like

Matthew Horn: piotr, all skandhas are impermanent and not-self, but the laws governing their impermanence and selflessness can be called permanent. otherwise the dharma itself would be impermanent. the dharma isn't an object, but it is a set of imputed causal relationships between objects; samsara changes but these laws do not, which can lead people to rightly refer to the dharma in positive terms as a set of rules that are eternal and unchanging (at least for beings in the three realms of samsara). positive references to the dharma can be useful because beings constantly ignore these causal relationships and their implications for escaping dukkha: they're subtle, deep, and hard to see
Thursday at 3:55pm · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: As you can see positive references can be used as eternalistic reification,
Thursday at 3:56pm · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: "Piotr Ludwiński, another approach then: how can you successfully reify space other than in your imagination? I am saying the same." without reification there is no "space". Have you ever read what Nagarjuna had to say about space?
Thursday at 3:58pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, Where can you find a constant in the absence of time. These are all variables. There is no constant without inconsistency.
Thursday at 4:00pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: Matthew Horn, Exactly! Well said! And furthermore the permanent rules are as permanent as the attributes of a Buddha. And it is the recognition of that permanent aspect of Buddhahood that lends the ontological flavor as an affirming negation, which is exactly what zhantong or Great Madyamaka is pointing out. "The Buddha Nature is intrinsically empty of all stains and afflictions, but is not empty of the Buddha qualities which are permanent".
Thursday at 4:02pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon Try space or better yet taste Dharmakaya. Its outside of time and change.
Thursday at 4:07pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: The space of Nagarjuna is an imputation. But that in which this is arising is not an imputed space. Its something of a different category.
Thursday at 4:09pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: I am off to bed! Matthew Horn can straighten this out quite adequately I am sure!
Thursday at 4:14pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: If you would carefully examine what Nagarjuna pointed out when he wrote about space it would be clear that there is no "space" beyond imputation of space. In emptiness no inherent five elements are found. http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/N/Nagarjuna/Space.htm

Nagarjuna: Space
www.poetry-chaikhana.com
Poetry of the sacred experience by poets and saints from around the world. Disc...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Thursday at 4:16pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, Your affirming negation theory has been refuted, but you don't listen. Shentong is simply Advaita dressed up like the dharma. That's all well and good if you want to enjoy Shentong and Yogācāra, but parading those traditions around as Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā is misrepresenting both.
Thursday at 4:26pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, dharmakāya isn't outside of time and change, time and change are abstractions, conventions etc. they arise as a result of ignorance and are ignorance themselves. The dharmakāya is a freedom from extremes and signifies the exhaustion of the ignorance which gives rise to the skandhas and notions of time, change etc. dharmakāya is emptiness and non-arising, and moreover isn't real but is merely a conventional designation. 

The dharmakāya is not 'beyond' time, but is free from time. Time requires objects transitioning in sequences which order consecutively. If objects are recognized as non-arising then time is non-arising. The unfindability of these states, events, objects, subjects, is their emptiness, that is dharmakāya. If you think that the dharmakāya is some capacity or thing which is hanging around outside of time or change then I'm not sure what to tell you, other than you're welcome to that opinion.
Thursday at 4:51pm via mobile · Like · 4

Kyle Dixon: Matthew, what are the laws governing the impermanence and selflessness of dharmas? Why would the natural state of dharmas require laws? Do you mean emptiness? I wouldn't say any aspects could truly be considered permanent (nor impermanent for that matter) beyond conventionality. 

Samsara is the product of ignorance (avidyā), how can samsara truly change in relation to something else which doesn't? Aren't these extremes imputed onto experience part and parcel to the very ignorance which gives rise to the delusion called samsara?

I'm all for the dharma being framed in positive terminology but it must be executed very skillfully in order to avoid unnecessary reification. Notions like 'eternal' and 'unchanging' are not terms I often see associated with the dharma. 'Unchanging' perhaps, but only contextually. 

If emptiness is the law you are referencing, then any notions which are product of any extreme are unsuitable characteristics, they're welcome conventionally of course, but one must walk that line. Emptiness is a freedom from extremes and a lack of inherency. Terms such as eternal, unchanging, permanent do seem to suggest inherency wouldn't you agree?
Thursday at 5:18pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: Elder Zen Master Han-Shan Te-Ch'ing (1546-1623) was one of the three "dragon-elephants," or most illustrious monks, during the final years of the Ming dynasty -- "an age of corruption, internal oppression and external weakness" (Sung-peng Hsu). :-

All teachings in the Tripitaka (Buddhist Canon) are tools to induce sentient beings to sever attachment. To those attached to Emptiness, Buddha Sakyamuni taught Existence to break that grasp. To those attached to Existence, He taught Emptiness so as to loosen that grasp. To those grasping at both Emptiness and Existence, He taught "neither Emptiness nor Existence" to break that grasp. Lastly, to those grasping at "neither Emptiness nor Existence," He taught both Emptiness and Existence to break that attachment. (1) 

In short, the purpose is to draw all sentient beings away from attachments. That is the Buddhist teaching of salvation. There is no other way to return to the source [the Mind], though there are many different expedient methods. We Buddhist students and practitioners should not become attached to these methods. When thoughts arise in our mind discriminating between what method is right and what method is wrong, that is against the purpose of the Buddhas and is a deviation from the Buddhist path. 

For example, when Buddha Sakyamuni taught the Dharma of Emptiness, His message was not that it was the opposite of Existence, but rather that it was Truth and Reality. What are Truth and Reality? Let me quote the T'ien T'ai Patriarch Chih I: 


When one dharma is empty, then all dharmas are empty; there is no separate Non-Emptiness. Without Non-Emptiness to contrast with Emptiness, Emptiness itself is unattainable [i.e., does not exist].
Similarly, when Buddha Sakyamuni taught Existence, this was not the opposite of Emptiness, but was rather to say: 

When one dharma exists, then all dharmas exist; there is no separate Non-Existence. Without Non-Existence to contrast with Existence, Existence itself is unattainable.

We should understand the true meaning of Emptiness and Existence. Nothing we say about Emptiness or Existence is attainable (i.e., truly valid). And since this is so, why are we still attached to them? 

The Great Master Han-Shan thoroughly understood the goal of the Buddhas. In tune with the minds of the Patriarchs, he spread the Dharma (teaching), grasping at neither Emptiness nor Existence, neither Non-Emptiness nor Non-Existence -- thereby manifesting the Middle Way. Thus, he promoted the cultivation of both Zen and Pure Land, pointing to the non-duality of Emptiness and Existence. That teaching is "Wonderful Enlightenment" (see Glossary). 

http://web.archive.org/web/20110905210518/http://www.ymba.org/han/hanfrm.htm
Pure Land of the Patriarchs : Zen Master Han-Shan on Pure Land Buddhism
web.archive.org
Thursday at 6:25pm · Unlike · 3 · Remove Preview

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: Ten Major Sects in China (belonging to Emptiness or Existence school) :-
1. Reality or Kosa or Abhidharma Sect (Existence School)
2. Satysiddhi or Cheng-se Sect (Emptiness School)
3. Three Sastra or San-lun Sect (Emptiness School)
4. The Lotus or T’ien-t’ai Sect (it absorbed the Nirvana Sect) (Emptiness School)
5. The Garland or Hua-yen or Avatamsaka Sect 
(it absorbed the Dasabhumika and the Samparigarhasastra Sects) (Existence School)
6. Intuitive or Cha’n or Dhyana Sect (Emptiness School)
7. Discipline or Lu or Vinaya Sect (Emptiness, Existence School)
8. Esoteric or Chen-yien or Mantra Sect (Emptiness, Existence School)
9. Dharmalaksana or Ch’u-en or Fa-siang Sect (Emptiness School)
10. Pure-land or Sukhavati or Ching-t’u Sect (Existence School)
http://e.hiphotos.baidu.com/baike/pic/item/e1fe9925bc315c6030ddc9e18db1cb1349547777.jpg
Existence Schools mostly stress on karma and D.O.

http://e.hiphotos.baidu.com/baike/pic/item/e1fe9925bc315c6030ddc9e18db1cb1349547777.jpg
e.hiphotos.baidu.com
Thursday at 7:05pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Soh: As Thusness said before however, "Interesting but there will be no ending to this.

In my opinion Buddha taught the way to sever attachment with right understanding. All else is attachment in disguise. "

Through direct realization of emptiness, the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence are severed. Emptiness means freedom from extremes. 

Trying to counter existence with non-existence (another extreme), etc, doesn't lead to a final resolution. Only Prajna wisdom liberates.
Thursday at 7:06pm · Edited · Unlike · 8

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: When practicing Zen, at the beginning of cultivation the expedient of Emptiness is used. But Zen does not mean Emptiness, nor does it mean Existence. Pure Land uses the expedient of Existence at the start of practice, but Pure Land does not mean Existence nor does it mean Emptiness. When Sakyamuni Buddha spoke of Emptiness and Existence, it was to reach human beings of different capacities. The Dharma itself transcends Emptiness and Existence. All methods taught by Buddha Sakyamuni are like prescriptions; since people suffer from different diseases, they need many kinds of prescriptions. It does not matter whether the medicine is expensive or cheap. As long as it is effective, it is a good medicine . 

Those who practice Zen or Pure Land should all understand this truth: "all Dharma methods are equal and none is superior or inferior." No one who really understands the deep meaning of the Dharma can have the kind of obstinate prejudice that sees inferiority and superiority between the various Buddhist methods. No one with that kind of obstinate prejudice can gain any real benefit from the Dharma. 

For example, the Zen school teaches meditation on a "hua-t'ou" (wato). Hua-t'ou means "before words," before a single thought rises up in one's mind. (2) What is there before a single thought rises up? It is No Thought. No thought is one's own Pure Mind, one's own Buddha Nature, one's own Original Face. Meditating on a hua-t'ou does not mean repeating it, because the repetition of a hua-t'ou is also a great false thought. Rather, to recognize one's own Original Face is the purpose of a hua-t'ou. 

The Pure Land school teaches Buddha Recitation -- the repetition of Amitabha Buddha's name. However, it does not teach merely to recite by mouth, like a parrot mindlessly squawking out words. Buddha Recitation centered on the mind is real Buddha Recitation. This is because Mind is Buddha, Buddha is Mind. As the sutras state: "The Mind, Buddhas and Sentient Beings are undifferentiated and equal." Outside of Mind, there is no Buddha, outside of Buddha, there is no Mind. Buddha is Mind, Mind is Buddha. If a practitioner recites the Buddha's name in this manner, he will gradually arrive at the stage where there is neither Mind as subject nor Buddha as object. And there is neither a subject reciting nor an object of recitation. This is the stage before the arising of a single thought. This is the hua-t'ou and this is one's own Original Face. If the practitioner can really understand the Dharma as transcending subject and object, what difference is there between Zen and Pure Land? 

Ever since Sakyamuni Buddha held up a flower and the Elder Mahakasyapa smiled, the method of Mind-to-Mind transmission, "without a word and outside the Teachings [of the Buddhist Canon]," has been the traditional way to pass the succession from patriarch to patriarch in the Zen school. (3) Since Bodhidharma came from the West (i.e., India), there has been continuous transmission, up to and including the Sixth Patriarch, Hui-Neng. In later generations, each Zen patriarch relied on his own techniques to train his students and followers. There are many methods, such as using Mind to seal Mind, meditating on a hua-t'ou, exploring one's Original Face, pondering "who is the one reciting the Buddha's name," or meditating on the single word "Wu" ("no") or on any of the other 1700 kung-ans (koans). However, the only purpose of all these teachings is to allow the practitioner to let go of everything, from body to mind, remove all false thought and rid himself of grasping and attachment. A practitioner who simply repeats a hua-t'ou or meditates on a kung-an without understanding its real purpose would be wasting his time and energy. 

The Dharma of Pure Land, taught by Sakyamuni Buddha without being requested, (4) expresses His great compassion. The magnificent realm and adornments of the Western Pure Land are described in detail in the Amitabha Sutra. The Pure Land Dharma is extolled by all Buddhas in the Ten Directions and cultivated by Bodhisattvas and Patriarchs. For example, the great Bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara (Kuan-Yin), Mahasthamaprapta (Ta Shih Chih), Manjusri, and Samantabhadra all advocated and followed Pure Land. In ancient India, the Patriarchs Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu, among others, all promoted Pure Land teachings. After the Dharma was transmitted to China, many Zen masters and great patriarchs promoted Pure Land. How perfect and lofty is the wonderful Dharma of Pure Land, taught by Sakyamuni Buddha and extolled by all Buddhas throughout the Ten Directions! We, on the other hand, are merely ordinary beings who have not yet broken away from ignorance and defilement. Yet, surprisingly, there are arrogant individuals who look down on this Pure Land Dharma. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20110905210518/http://www.ymba.org/han/hanfrm.htm
Pure Land of the Patriarchs : Zen Master Han-Shan on Pure Land Buddhism
web.archive.org
Thursday at 7:12pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: i recalled mentioned by old MCK, that the universes are vast and there are infinity world systems out there, and there are some particular world systems where people are more attached to Emptiness/no-self. i always think that dharma is not fixed in that particular way. and in some world system, people are more sharp in their sense of taste. and enlightenment can come in eating!
Thursday at 7:31pm · Edited · Like

Soh: When emptiness and no-self is directly realized, it is impossible that it can become an object of attachment since attachments always relate to extremes... and emptiness is not a position of extreme such as non-existence but freedom from all extremes and positions.
Thursday at 7:31pm · Edited · Unlike · 5

Soh: Only wrong understanding of emptiness can become an object of attachment.
Thursday at 7:31pm · Unlike · 6

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: "Nothing we say about Emptiness or Existence is attainable " - yes, it is one of the three marks. Three marks also includes impermanence (anicca); and unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). karma of existence are also in play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence
there's also a fourth Dharma Seal - "Nirvana is peace. Nirvana is the "other shore" from samsara."

Three marks of existence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Three marks of existence, within Buddhism, are three characteristics (Pali: ...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Thursday at 7:46pm · Edited · Unlike · 2 · Remove Preview

Wayne Yap Sin Wei: "there will be no ending to this.", yes, there's always a risk of extremism. that's when Buddha was Fully Enlightened when he saw a man playing a string instrument. at the Middle balanced Way, the music is at best. all are sort of like a balancing act to the final final stage. Non-attachment is to me just the first stage. then there's non-discrimination of either sides and finally, non-wandering thoughts(the Mahakasyapa smile :))(the Total Non-obstruction in ALL realms of phenomena.) 
Ch'eng-kuan discusses the perfect teaching, the teaching of the
Hua-yen school in the third section, the division of doctrines. He
divides this section into four parts:
I. Non-obstruction in realm of phenomenon;
II. Non-obstruction in realm of noumenon;
III. Non-obstruction in both realms of phenomenon and noumenon;
IV. Total Non-obstruction in ALL realms of phenomena.
Thursday at 8:13pm · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: As Thrangu commented in his clarification of the Uttara Tantra:

"The fruition of Buddha-nature possesses the transcendental
qualities of purity, identity, happiness, and permanence. Complete
purity is achieved when Buddhahood is achieved. When one has
gone beyond self and non-self, one achieves the transcendental
quality of identity. The qualities of transcendental happiness and
permanence are also manifest at the time of fruition."
Yesterday at 3:40am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, your ignorance of zhantong is embarrassing for you. Why did Dilgo Khentse, Dudjum Rinpoche, Jamgon Kuntrul, Kalu Rinpoche and many, many others support this view publicly if it represented "advaita" or a "heretical view"?
Yesterday at 3:43am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: They claimed that the Shentong view had it's uses when it came to practice (Dudjom Rinpoche did at least), however the general consensus is that when it comes to expressing the view (dzogchen) intellectually and in debate, individuals should always implement the logic of Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka, especially that of the early Indian adepts; meaning mainly Nāgārjuna.
Yesterday at 4:02am via mobile · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: -
> Ok it's clear now thank you Kyle, Stian and Justin! I am now sure you all believed beyond the five skandhas is the condition of annihilation of awareness.

I don't understand what you're trying to say that I believed here. Either it's the phrasing or it's a projection.
Yesterday at 4:09am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: For the record I'm open to Shentong having its uses, however I personally don't consider it to be a definitive view, and that is just my opinion, you're welcome to disagree Jackson and I respect your opinion.
Yesterday at 4:25am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, Great Madhyamaka completes the incomplete view of Nagarjuna's view. His view is perfect but not complete as it leaves the door wide open for nihilistic conclusions as are being proffered here. Nagarjuna even said that the "view of emptiness as nihilism is far worse than the view of eternalism."
Yesterday at 6:36am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, its clear that you all three have misunderstood the Buddha's early teachings. You believe the only consciousness or awareness is "dependently arisen". You aren't aware of primordial Awareness, self-knowing Rigpa(Buddha Mind... Bodhicitta) that is non-dependent. You further conclude that if the Five Skandhas ceased, that all consciousness or awareness would cease as well. This is a nihilistic and an incorrect view.
Yesterday at 6:50am via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "would cease" jax, in emptiness there is no arising, abiding and ceasing.
Yesterday at 6:57am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Don't claim that Nagarjuna's view is incomplete if you haven't comprehended even it's basics. If one has understood what emptiness points out to there is no problem with "ceasing of awareness" after death since no awareness can be pinned down as reality even in life. ""And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha
www.accesstoinsight.org
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in th...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Yesterday at 7:01am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Piotr Ludwiński: http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.aspx very good article that points out difference between brahman and dharmakaya...

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
www.byomakusuma.org
Famous Indian Hindu scholars like the ex-President of India the late Radhakrishn...[Cut off website preview]
See More
Yesterday at 7:06am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, yeah, I find it's quite clear.

You think I've misunderstood. I think you've misunderstood. 
You'll find proof in the texts, I'll find proof in the texts.
You'll find proof in experience, I'll find proof in experience.

I have been lead to think that the Buddha was very adamant in avoiding non-dependent anythings.

You have been lead to think that that wasn't the full truth.

So what I'm left with here is to ponder the consequences of our different takes.

You say my take is nihilistic and incorrect. Other than verbal nitpicking, why is that? I mean, correct view serves a purpose. Does my take hinder the blossoming of this purpose?

In my newest post I said that the eternalist counter to my take is that it is nihilistic. And my counter to that was: how can radical openness be nihilistic? Radical, obliterating transience that crushes hierarchy till it is zero-dimensional and all that's left is non-reified creation, ever-display, exhaustion of phenomena. Nothing can really be said about that, but if I feel poetic I would say it is obvious, vivid, life – not void, blackness, death.

This vividness is born of freshness, ever-dawning newness, change, impermanence, transience.

To me, your take lacks such utterly complete insubstantiality and dynamism, and what you end up with is static, permanent and dead. By definition it doesn't change, is not dynamic. The absurd consequences stand in line.

By utilizing an ontological scheme instead of an epistemological approach, you are disabling the release of realizing global process. Process, not substance; Verb, not noun; Emptiness, not Brahman.
Yesterday at 7:33am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Chapweske: "That vividness is born of freshness, ever-dawning newness, change, impermanence, tran science." Beautiful! This also why I have a very hard time seeing why nihilism is a problem. You have to be completely daft not to see that always-changing This is undeniable.
Yesterday at 7:33am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Justin Chapweske, have you found the "changeless"?
Yesterday at 7:40am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, its about penetrating to core of one's own conscious awareness, beyond mere impermanence of phenomena, but rather to the space from which all phenomena arise.
Yesterday at 7:46am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, If one sees deeply into the non-origination of the five skandhas, their inherent emptiness... they cease functioning because that functioning was grounded in not "seeing" their emptiness. This becomes know as wisdom. Since the five skandhas have ceased, including vijnana, what is it that knows their emptiness and can discuss this with others?
Yesterday at 7:51am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, I have studied Madhyamaka in great depth and have actually applied the exercises as taught regarding various objects of negation. Marvelous realizations arose again and again. The absence of "causality" was seen through for example.
Yesterday at 7:54am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, It seems your view remains a "localized" experience.
Yesterday at 7:57am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Yes, I think I understand, Jackson.

But please, answer me this: Why do you deem "mere impermanence of phenomena" to be nihilism?
___

We start with "subject and object".

"The space from which all phenomena arise" is awareness. And awareness is a word we use for the auto-luminous aspect of phenomena.
->
The space in which phenomena arise, is the space in which phenomena arise.

As that is not parsimonious, we simply ditch the split, the construing. We don't need any space for the phenomena to arise in or as. So we dissolve the subject.
->
Now we're left with "and object". 

As that is not parsimonious, we simply ditch even the object. Zero-dimentiallity-overdrive initiated! Non-arising arises 
Yesterday at 8:00am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: What do you mean by localized, Jackson?
Yesterday at 8:01am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: -
> If one sees deeply into the non-origination of the five skandhas, their inherent emptiness... they cease functioning because that functioning was grounded in not "seeing" their emptiness. 

When the five aggregates cease functioning, it's not as if whatever they did in the past simply vanish into thin air.

When inherent self-identity (being itself onto itself) cease, it's not as if the parts that constituted the designation simply vanish into thin air.

If you fashion a house out of bricks and wood, then later tear down the house, it's not as if the parts that constituted the designation simply vanish into thin air.

Law of conservation of energy and all.

But it ceases it's coalesced state. It functions no longer as a grouping or nexus or designation – wisdom discerns.

The parts of the house is no longer designated a house.
The parts of the self-identity is no longer designated the self-identity.
The parts of the five aggregates is no longer designated the five aggregates.
Yesterday at 8:16am · Edited · Like

Justin Chapweske: Jackson Peterson - No, I have not experienced anything I would call "changeless" other than the virtual reality that is created in a single belief moment. If there is a practice to try, I will try it. Other than that all my seeking has only led Here.
Yesterday at 8:51am via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I wouldn't call Nāgārjuna's view incomplete at all, perhaps those who think it falls short of whatever ideal they're projecting onto it simply don't understand his teaching. It's far from nihilistic, it's a perfect equanimity. Maybe you see it as nihilistic because it negates aspects of experience that you hold in high regard, in that case it isn't Nāgārjuna who is creating the issue.
Yesterday at 9:50am via mobile · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, why do you continually state that vidyā (rigpa) is non-dependent, as if it refutes dependent origination? In Madhyamaka dependent origination and emptiness are synonymous. In dzogchen dependent origination and emptiness are antonymous. So while vidyā isn't dependently originated, it's still completely and totally empty, and not established in any way... Therefore dependent origination is not contradicted! 

Using the 'non-dependency' of vidyā as a weapon against Madhyamaka like you do is an unfortunate byproduct of your misunderstanding.
Yesterday at 10:21am via mobile · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon... You make no sense! I respect the theory and application of Madhyamaka. However it affirms nothing. That's its beauty and its limitation, hence the superiority of both Dzogchen and zhantong. Madhyamka can't discuss rigpa, it can only deconstruct objects of negation. Zhantong stresses both as obvious. You have construed a conceptually constructed Dzogchen that doesn't exist. All of Dzogchen is summarized: "Return the son light to its home in the mother light in the heart.". When awareness resides in the heart nirvana is known. Yang Ti has only this goal.
Yesterday at 12:40pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: And I likewise would say you make no sense. To each their own.
Yesterday at 12:50pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Justin Chapweske, the methods of Dzogchen and Essence Mahamudra point out this "changeless nature". That which is noticing what you are reading on this thread, right now, is the changeless nature. Its empty knowingness and is unconditioned because there is nothing there to be conditioned. Its not a self nor an entity. We can expose this through this dialogue ... Its what's looking... Look back at what's looking. You won't find anything there that is "looking". Rest as that "unfindable" looking..
Yesterday at 1:00pm via mobile · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, are those instructions ^ meant provisionally?
Yesterday at 1:59pm · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, no these instructions are essential and complete.
Yesterday at 1:27pm via mobile · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: As mentioned earlier in this thread:

What do you think of this article, Jackson:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html
Yesterday at 1:30pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland. I have read this... Quite similar to what's known here: especially "The entire universe is a transparent shimmering of the Divine, of primordial Purity. But the Divine is not someplace else, it is just all of this shimmering. It is self-seen. It has One Taste. It is nowhere else."
However the "oneness" is not merging with the mountain but rather the mountain is known as consciousness that "mountaining".
Yesterday at 2:00pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "However the "oneness" is not merging with the mountain but rather the mountain is known as consciousness that "mountaining"." yeah it seems that Ken Wilber is pointing out that (at least that is how I understood his article 
Yesterday at 2:03pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: So we can argue over his total positions. I concur on all his general descriptions, minus the efforts at poetic fluff.., 
Yesterday at 2:11pm via mobile · Like

Robert Dominik: Jax: "space is changeless" <- how exactly? And what space do you mean by that - the physical space or some metaphysical space? 
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: Robert Dominik Its a metaphor. In conceptual space there is nothing to change positions or to endure or to disintegrate. Its a mind tool to understand "emptiness" in terms of the "unestablished".
11 hours ago · Like

Robert Dominik: I do not like this metaphor. Because I suspect that people who came up with it were regarding physical space in terms of something unestablished and changeless (that's why what you are referring was in some ways similar to physical space for them - hence the metaphor of space). Even some western philosophers were referring to space as not a entity or non-entity but a conceptual tool for people to find links between objects presumambly existing in this space. As it turned out the physical space is subject to change, depends on various factors and is probably subject to uncertainty 
35 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: I'll make it more clear and I hope you like it Jax because you were sometimes referring to modern science to find some support for the views you express. Long time ago people thought that physical space is definite, does not change, it is some still container for objects and phenomena. Think of fish in the water. The people thought that we, objects and various phenomena are to be found in physical space much like fish in the water. So when they were projecting thing called awareness to be some permament source of everything they found that using space as a metaphor may come in handy. They were convinced that there something even greater than space - the all seeing eye of awareness that contains everything. But such a view of physical space they have used to build their metaphor is being obliberated by modern science - not completely but this process is happening even right now in some science labs etc. The same thing has happened to human views regarding time. Time changes, time is dependent on other phenomena (gravity, velocity - they change... the time dilates). And the space has met the same fate. Space can be distorted by gravity (black holes), probably the space in our universe is not the ideal space of euclidean geometry (so it's affected by the mass of particles). Hell there are even theories in modern science that not only matter is energy (E=MCsquare :P) but that energy and matter are space. Some physicists think that the all is just bits of information. But information does not exists on its own (semantics - it INFORMS about something - so its dependent on other information which are subject to the same rule).
11 hours ago · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: I am sorry for going a little offtopic and constructing another textwall (but I will be grateful if someone will spot some outstanding ignorance lurking out of it and point it out for my benefit :P) but Jax likes to use science as a resort in discussions (I am referring to Jackson's posts about David Bohm :P). I'd like to write something connected to that because if we think that science is a good way of desciribing the world we should be aware that the science does not escape emptiness (and also in my opinion science is useful for building space ships and inventing digital technologies but we should be careful when using science as an argument in discussions about so called spiritual ;)).

So maybe physics is not buddhism and it's not the tool or the way to "get" enlightened but certainly if you contemplate on it the emptiness of the world of physics becomes quite apparent. There is no single entity, no single quantum particle that is self-contained - everything exists in relation to something (which is also empy of inherent essence much in the same way). It's just a bunch of equations and wave functions which are desciribing other equations and wave functions  Uncertainty principle, quantum superposition (which basically holds that a system is in all possible states until you measure it = every system or object you would like to describe can only be found existing in some particular state if it is compared and established in regard to some other systems because that's what measurement is, you take an object and compare it to a ruler - if that does not ring a bell called "dependent origination" then I don't know what does xD). Quantum mechanics is so powerful in destroying the conceptions people may hold about time and space that Niels Bohr once said about quantum physics: "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If that hasn't profoundly shocked you then you probably haven't understood it yet.” It was so powerful that many physicists decades ago held buddhism in high regard and were vegetarians (like Einstien - but I'll agree that he was sort of brahman-type) and the impact that quantum mechanics had on science was part of the cultural shock in the west (along with postmodernism, nihilism, world wars and so on) which directly preceeded the hippie era and the dawn of dharma in the west.

And let us remember that physics is only to be found in some equations on a blackboard or in somebody's head ;P Like every other system of describing the world it is based on ignorance. But as a system based on ignorance it has reached the point in which indicates that all things are impermament, and there is nothing indepndently existing on its own. Many physicists are still searching for some source much like many spiritual practitioners are still searching for some True Self or some Source but in my opinion it is a fool's errand. The only thing to be found is ignorance. 

It is not only physics. It is very easy to use numbers in mathematics as a nice example of emptiness. And it is quite important too because whenever we establish objects to be existent or non-existent we do it referring to numbers (every time we suppose that there is a self we are assuming that this Self is one, if there is a lack of something then it is minus one, quite funny that Indian numeral for zero is called shunya).
10 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: I read your whole text Robert... I agree. But the notion that all we find is "ignorance" is the opposite of my view and experience. I say all we find and will ever find is "wisdom", the Knowing quality that is always present without exception in all "experience" or in even the experience of "no experience". This Intelligence is self-organizing and presents Itself in seamless varieties of self-organizing phenomena that never really ever attain any permanent or temporary ontological status. But that very lack of ontological entity-ness, is the ontological nature of the "Unestablished". Perhaps the Tao is an innocent and apt appellation.
10 hours ago · Like

Robert Dominik: What I meant was that finding anything is only finding a conceived idea - no matter how subtle or profound it may seem. That's why Bahiya Sutta is held by many dharmaconnectioners in such a high regard - because it says that there is simply what is see...See More
9 hours ago · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Robert Dominik, the Wisdom event I am speaking about is not one that one can choose to believe in or not. Its not a belief or conceptual construction, that's why its a permanent wisdom.
9 hours ago · Like

No comments:

Post a Comment