Friday, August 8, 2014

Is there only movement or also its non-moving counterpart?

Geovani Geo
July 24 at 3:30am · Edited

There is this questioning line going on then. Is what is only appearances or appearances are one aspect of its non-apparent counterpart? Is there only movement or also its non-moving counterpart? Is time all there is, or is there the timeless counterpart? Ending of time is also the ending of the timeless? Ending of the known is also the ending of gnosis? Time-bound castles, as the world, are constructed with timeless bricks. Are the bricks and the castle identical?
UnlikeUnlike ·

    You, John Tan, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Laya Jakubowicz and 2 others like this.
    Geovani Geo Interesting that some prefer to put it this way: FIRST the notion of some subject (light) aware of its objects... THEN as if in some evolving progression path the realization that subject (light) is the very nature of the object. But you can put it in another order: FIRST the notion that there is only appearances as one whole movement of light.... THEN upon further inquiry/insight the realization that the whole field of appearances is not hanging in dead emptiness but is the reflected limited aspect of the non-apparent source of light that you are.
    July 24 at 3:41am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo I will look into this anew, as if i have never looked at it before. I want to know whether I am deluding myself, projecting, imagining. Looking at what is... honestly with sincere openness to whatever it is.
    July 24 at 4:20am · Edited · Unlike · 2
    Geovani Geo Soh wrote (part): "More specifically, dharma eye is the eye that perceives the impermanence, arising and subsiding of dharmas, the anatta nature of dharma. It is this eye that defines 'stream entry'. It is a direct realization into anatta and impermanence." Geo asks: -- Is such eye part of the impermanence that it perceives? IOW.... is there an non-causal (un-caused) midst the causal (caused)?
    July 24 at 4:40am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I have a preference for negation, because the expectation, conscious or not, is that the resolution will be really awesome and affirming, but that's not what it turned out to be.

    It is simultaneously the biggest disappointment possible and the greatest freedom. I wrote this some time ago on this group:

    It is like not knowing, because the notion of knowing does not arise, because there is no unknown.

    It is like absence, because the notion of presence does not arise, because there is no absence.
    July 24 at 8:56am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I think there's an entrance in contemplating dualities like you are doing in the OP. Maybe it's the undirected door. A full-system de-sedimentation of conceptualization.

    One salient feature for me is that the unconditional simply slips through the net of dualities. Especially prominent for me is being-or-non-being, existence-or-non-existence, presence-or-absence, knowing-or-not-knowing. The unconditional simply evades that kind of pigeonholing, and when one sees this, it recontextualizes dualities—one sees through them, meaning their weight or sense of realness is adjusted.
    July 24 at 8:56am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Casual-or-acasual and conditional-or-unconditional is yet another duality that enchants us like a spell. It doesn't point to any actual reality; it only has conventional significance.

    Geovani wrote:

    "(...) the non-apparent source of light that you are."

    Self-or-other ("you") is another one. It's an imputation mistakenly believed to indicate a reality.
    Is-or-is-not ("are") is yet another blinding spell.
    July 24 at 9:08am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Stian, I understand where you are coming from and cant disagree. Of course any symbol one uses can be interpreted as conceptualization and that is the reason of preference of the via negativa or negation. Nonetheless "negation" is just a word as any other pointing to the very same as for example "no-thing". Once the limiting aspect of words are seen they can be used freely (but with care). There is patterning as seeming appearances and there is non-patterning. The non-patterning is not the same as void or nothing (there is no such fact as nothing) and the non-patterning is the same as the patterning. The absence of patterning is not nothing but no-thing; and both are here timelessly present now. One could argue "what both?". The pattern and the absence of pattern. To posit the reality of the patterns (things) is to negate their empty nature, and to affirm their absolute absence is to negate the very fact that is allowing us to have a conversation about it. The resolution of such paradox is what could be called the middle way - I guess.So the deep understanding of the duality pattern/non-pattern is the realization of their nondual nature. I appreciate the depth of your contemplative words, Stian.
    July 24 at 2:35pm · Edited · Like
    Soh "Is such eye part of the impermanence that it perceives? IOW.... is there an non-causal (un-caused) midst the causal (caused)?"

    No, it is actually a stream of wisdom. Wisdom here is not a subject-object relationship -- i.e. not a someone being 'aware' of something. It is really just the experience itself dawning in its true nature (as opposed to being misperceived by delusion), self-revealed, self-aware, by being itself. The eye of wisdom knows impermanence by being-realizing impermanence, it is not a separate knower.

    As Daniel Ingram wrote, "So who is it that awakens? It is all of this transience which awakens"

    Thusness also wrote before, "Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)

    There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own." --

    Finally, deeper insights will reveal that what is caused is in fact non-causal. For what dependently originates in fact never arose, abides, ceases, comes, goes, increase, decrease... as expressed in Heart Sutra.
    Awakening to Reality: Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"
    July 24 at 4:43pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

    Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm Smith):

    There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

    Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

    Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

    Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

    I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
    the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
    not ceasing, not arising
    not annihilated, not permanent,
    not going, not coming,
    not diverse, not single,
    was taught as peace
    in order to pacify proliferation.

    Loppon Namdrol:

    First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all.

    Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.

    The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

    Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidya; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidya (rigpa).



    Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nagarjuna is wrong.

    The definition of lhun grub is "not made by anyone". Lhun drub is dependent origination free of afflictive patterning, thus it is pure process and transformation.
    Awakening to Reality: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination
    Zhi Rigpa does go beyond dependent origination.The teaching of form is emptiness... See More
    July 24 at 4:53pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo I understand what you are saying. "The eye of wisdom, the stream of wisdom, is restricted to appearances. Movement knows itself as movement and there is only movement. Impermanence knows itself and there is only impermanence. The seeing eye is seeing itself." That is the death of the me, of the self, of some separate observer; the duality subject/object resolved. In some schools I heard this is called god-consciousness. There is one more step to that. There are infinite similes that can be used and none of them is perfect. Here is one: there is black non-apparent timeless wisdom/light. It is non-apparent for one simple single reason. Such light hits the peak of the mountain and is reflected as perceivable limited aspect of itself. The nature of phenomena as reflected light is the same of forms reflected at the surface of a mirror: empty.
    July 24 at 8:54pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Another simile. This is perhaps closer to your personal academic/professional background:--- Wisdom is a timeless supra-dimensional TV screen and phenomena is just pixels on and/or off in it. Are such "pixel-phenomena" separate from the screen? Do they have a one-to-one absolute identity?
    July 24 at 9:30pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Soh, please dont take this as an attempt to teach, I am just making an effort to illustrate where i am coming from. In the above wisdom-screen simile it is possible to identify three levels of consciousness. 1- Illusion. Identification as discrete pixel-images which amounts to the sense of subject-object dream world. 2 - The realization that one is the totality of pixel-images and that the sense of subject/objects was just an illusion. It is all one seamless flow of wisdom/phenomena. 3- The assimilation of the previous (number 2) do the ground as the wisdom-screen.
    July 24 at 9:54pm · Like
    Geovani Geo While the totality of the flow of wisdom-images involves an enormous set of possibilities and combinations, the wisdom-ground-screen is the potentiality and actualization of ALL possibilities. That is where they are not identical.
    July 24 at 10:06pm · Like
    ????????? ?????? Hi Geovani Geo, when you say that they are not identical, do you mean that they are conventionally/nominally not identical?
    * sorry I wrote conceptually/nominally instead of conventionally/nominally, but I think the answer is the same..
    July 24 at 10:32pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo No. Not conceptually. The totality of time/movement/pixel-images is a kind of movement upon the present unmoving. There is nothing conceptual in this.
    July 24 at 10:41pm · Edited · Like
    Soh There is a phase where many in this group has gone through where the manifestations are seen to be an inseparable expression of nondual awareness, which is seen as the unchanging source and substance of all phenomena. But anatta allows us to see through this way of framing 'Awareness'.

    When anatta is seen, it is not really God-realization -- in fact the whole view of a metaphysical source/substratum etc goes out the window. And at the same time everything is intensely luminous, alive, vivid, direct, there is no room for concepts or forming theories -- there is just sensations, colours, sounds, thoughts... the aggregates. Only then truly experience directness, as directness and simplicity is the result of completely dissolving all faces of self/Self.

    The screen is really just an image of 'Awareness' -- a subtle abstraction of luminosity out of the expression/manifestation. One tries to split off something like a space-awareness into a subject. This arises due to the view of inherent subjectivity. But in actuality everything the mind subjectifies is really just an image of a foreground manifestation, there is nothing unmanifest or hidden behind whatever's appearing.

    The abstraction process is like for example, seeing a table and we might say, 'colour of a table'. But that statement assumes that there is an entity to which the colours are attributed to. We may think -- the colour is not the table, but belongs to 'the table'. But in actuality, what is table besides colour? We might say "wheels of a car", "windscreen of the car", as those aggregates are not the car but belongs to it, but what is car other than as a convention for the aggregation itself? Is a car still a car when we remove the aggregates? Or is it a designation based on imputation and all the various aggregations? The aggregation IS (conventionally) the car, there is no entity called car besides/behind/within them.

    Likewise, due to deep karmic propensities we have a strong sense of 'I'. We feel that I am not my legs, but my legs belong to me -- they can be chopped off but still, I am me. And we think that underneath or behind all of it, there is a Self that is forever untouched, unchanged, unaffected. Then when we have a powerful transcendental insight/experience of something very real, luminous, intimate (gapless), it is all too easy to misperceive this as being the very changeless core or essence of Self. What we didn't realize is that what 'Self' is is just a convention for the five aggregates -- five aggregates, nothing more or besides that! The pure sense of Existence is not wrong but the view of inherency is erroneous, it is being mixed up with reification and identification. In reality, that pure Presence is also aggregate pertaining to the non-conceptual thought/Mind realm. (All aggregates are Buddha-nature, there is nothing inherently wrong with them but they are either perceived in delusion or as wisdom)

    What we do not realize is that this 'self/Self' is really not truly existent but formed out of a process of abstraction based on inherent existence, which is why we see experiences as merely one of the 'extensions' or the manifestations, of an inherently existing 'Self' or 'awareness', perhaps inseparable from it, but yet not equatable to it. But we didn't realize that awareness IS only the expression/form/experience/colours/sounds/etc manifesting (just like tables to colours, cars to wheels/engines/screen/etc). It is only a convention for the self-luminous manifestation.

    In actuality what we call "Awareness" really has nothing to do with a screen, or mirror, or anything like that -- only the full expression and experience as it is. In the moment of hearing, there is no screen hearing or seeing or reflecting reflections, awareness, hearing is just the sound, no hearer, not even something like a space being one with the sound. The reflections are the mirror, i.e. they are self-mirroring, self-luminous. No mirror reflecting, just manifestation alone is.

    It is not easy for one to accept this as the view of inherent existence feels very real as karmic propensities is literally like a spell shaping our very moment of experience/perception. One has to contemplate, challenge, investigate, penetrate one's very view of inherent self and objects.

    For me, the contemplation on Bahiya Sutta was vital for my breakthrough. It is a very direct form of contemplation.
    Awakening to Reality: The Buddha on Non-Duality
    This passage has been most useful to me personally. The challenge is to constant... See More
    July 25 at 5:08am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo " There is a phase where many in this group has gone through where the manifestations are seen to be an inseparable expression of nondual awareness, which is seen as the unchanging source and substance of all phenomena. But anatta allows us to see through this way of framing 'Awareness'." The unchanging source and substance of all phenomena can not be seen - only BE-ed. You are describing a conceptual source/substance that you (personally) probably at some time held and cherished as some concept. I am not talking of that. I am talking of a no-thing that IS the present ground of being - not some "other" or some "elsewhere".
    July 25 at 5:14am · Edited · Like
    Soh Yes I know exactly what you're talking about. It is being, it is gapless. It is nothing conceptual. But that direct apprehension of Being/Awareness is misinterpreted by the view of inherency. Also, the direct taste is also experienced as impermanence when realization of anatta occurs, this is what I meant by opening wisdom eye. Most people only experience nondual gapless pertaining to a small aspect of luminosity of mind. All senses, all phenomena, can be experienced in the same taste. However the same taste of luminosity should be distinguished from the same taste of emptiness. Both must be realized and integrated.

    If you didn't know, I wrote a journal about my experiences in

    I had chapters dedicated to that "I AM".

    Here's an entry in Feb 2010:

    I was doing self inquiry yesterday with my back straight and legs crossed in the position of sitting meditation, contemplating 'Who am I', 'Before Birth Who am I'... with an intense desire to know the truth of my being. As the thoughts subside, an intense and palpable sense of beingness and presence, the only 'thing' that remains that I feel to be my innermost essence... became very obvious... very very vivid and intense, and feels
    like a constant background in which everything is taking place, thoughts (almost none at that moment, but arise afterwards) that arise are also taking place in this unchanging background... and there is this certainty and doubtlessness about this I AM-ness, IT is absolutely real and undeniable. IT/I AMness/The Witness is the only solid and undoubtable Presence and is clearly present with or without thoughts. I remembered briefly thinking after having experienced that, "So this is it! This is enlightenment!" and "No, not enlightenment", but it’s funny how these thoughts are just passing thoughts like wind, occurring in this solid constant undoubtable sense of presence. Inconsequential and illusory doubts and concepts are arising within undoubtable presence... passes away as soon as they arise because there is no more identification with the mind/ego. After all, I am just this Reality, this background of awareness that is ever-present and watching, I'm not any of those thoughts that come and go. The part that thinks 'I am enlightened' or 'I am not enlightened', that is not what I am and can never be 'enlightened' and thus totally irrelevant, while what I am, is always already completely clear and perfect beyond doubt, already and always perfectly 'awake'/'aware'. From the perspective of Consciousness, all thoughts and perceptions are just illusory appearances coming and going within consciousness. I just found a quote by Nisargadatta Maharaj that puts it so well: "This reality is so concrete, so actual, so much more tangible than mind and matter, that compared to it even diamond is soft like butter. This overwhelming actuality makes the world dreamlike, misty, irrelevant."

    Just a pure sense of existence and beingness. An unmoving context, like a screen in which the entire display of life is shown in. This background of presence and awareness is formless, behind, and prior to all thoughts and forms. Feels most vivid when there is no engagement in thoughts, no thoughts, just BEING it. Though, thoughts that arise didn't affect the background sense of presence. Presence remains unmoved, unaffected, undeniably present. It may be apparently obscured when the attention goes all out at thoughts and feelings, such that we are so totally identified with them that we think that they are the entirety of our being. That is why we need to self-inquire seriously, not taking any concepts to be truth, but relentlessly inquire into the depths of our being without any conceptual perception until we feel with confidence this solid, thoughtless being and presence is the undeniable, unmoving essence of being. It reveals itself easily if we let go of our thoughts in meditation, like a jewel at the bottom of the lake reveals itself if the surface is calm.

    Keep inquiring: Who am I?

    Doubt (stop following) every single thought until only the undoubtable, vivid, non-conceptual self-knowing Presence and Beingness remains. It is free from all conceptual constructs, separation and attributes. Understand that no concepts and thoughts are an accurate representation of reality, self, or the world. Absolutely no thought is the (absolute) truth. Naked Self-Knowing Presence is the only source of true certainty, all thoughts are doubtable and disposable, like a dream that when we wake up we realise to be simply projections and imaginations.
    You are non-dual self-knowing Awareness. Without even using thoughts, you can't deny that sense of existence that You Are. That which knows/is certain of I AM is I AM itself.

    That which is sure of its existence – the innermost certainty of I Am – is what you essentially are. In other words: I Am this knowing that knows that I Am. - Leo Hartong

    Thusness commented I should experience the impersonality aspect (note: not anatta, but the impersonally aspect of AMness) so much so that I feel I share the ‘same source’, and though I have realised the Self, I have not yet realised that it is the 'non-conceptual, direct' that gives the 'certainty', the undoubtedness. This is what makes the experience of I AM different from ordinary dualistic experience, which has intermediary, is dualistic, and secondary. No direct-ness. And... the depth and intensity of experience can still be improved. He said that if I pursue the experience then non-conceptuality becomes a hindrance and I will suffer because I cannot overcome the arising thoughts, which will lead to struggling. Which I fully agree because the next thing after meditation, frustration started happening for me, when there’s an attempt to 'get back' to the experience and don't know how. Yet, all attempts are secondary, like trying to rest the mind in awareness when awareness has always been at rest, trying to stop mind movement when Awareness has always been the still point of the turning world. He also told me deeply inquire on the old philosophical question about whether a tree in the forest would make a sound if no one were there to hear it. It will lead to nondual experience. If I were to go through the motion, I will not realise it. It must be the sort of experience I have with I AMness.
    Awakening to Reality: My e-book/e-journal
    Domo arigato! This updated version has twelve more pages than my current copy. S... See More
    July 25 at 5:22am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
    Soh While luminous beingness feels like a 'Source' behind and giving rise to phenomena, that is really just a reification of the direct apprehension of Awareness. Source requires the concept of time, before, after, etc, and it requires the notion of separation. In hearing, just SOUND. It is like the taste of 'I AM' except it is just SOUND. You do not say that hearing gave rise to sound and subsides back to hearing/being. Hearing is just being-sound, no hearer.
    July 25 at 5:32am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Soh, I must tell you that I can only cope with texts not much longer then the one bellow. Also... i may consult quotes now and then but that is not my preferred manner of interchange for that may easily became a dispute over "my real buddha quotes against your false ones" . You said "Yes I know exactly what you're talking about. It is being, it is gapless. It is nothing conceptual. But that direct apprehension of Being/Awareness is misinterpreted by the view of inherency. Also, the direct taste is also experienced as impermanence when realization of anatta occurs, this is what I meant by opening wisdom eye. Most people only experience nondual gapless pertaining to a small aspect of luminosity of mind. All senses, all phenomena, can be experienced in the same taste. However the same taste of luminosity should be distinguished from the same taste of emptiness." ----------All being mind including the concept of some mind renders crude naked direct phenomena. Such phenomena are indeterminate because of their common mind-nature. Such indeterminate field is directly apprehended indeed as luminous impermanence. BUT the no-thing-ness that apprehends such impermanence is not apprehended, it can not (or it would be a concept) except as the luminous impermanent and limited aspect of itself. This is meditation, right?
    July 25 at 5:37am · Like
    Geovani Geo Now, back to the question: is the wisdom-eye (I am using your nomenclature for this) relates to phenomena as a one-to-one identity? I say no. Phenomena is limited and the eye is unlimited as the potentiality of all possibilities.
    July 25 at 5:40am · Like
    Soh What I mean by apprehension is not a form of dualistic knowledge, but non-dual being/knowing. The formless beingness is its very awareness, its awareness is just beingness.

    As much as it appears to, this formless beingness does not "apprehend" impermanence. Impermanence is not apprehended dualistically, it is its very knowing by its very being, just like "I AM". There is no knower apart from impermanence to apprehend impermanence.
    July 25 at 5:42am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh Limitations are purely a mental fabrication, of a center and boundary. In anatta, all phenomena/experience/manifestation are experienced without a center and boundary, i.e., manifestation is limitless.
    July 25 at 5:43am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh The very idea that formless beingness perceives impermanence is due to delusion that formless beingness is the changeless background of impermanence. In fact, formless beingness is merely one transient manifestation in the flow of self-cognizing impermanence. It as timeless and motionless as any other transient manifestation.
    July 25 at 5:49am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Manifestation is limited in the sense that it carries a "localization" and "time" and "a sense of known dimensionality" and "Cartesian chronology" and "substantiality" etc... But ultimately all those qualities are absent through indeterminacy... and only Subject is. Only Noumenon is.
    July 25 at 5:50am · Like
    Soh Manifestation is in fact non-local, timeless, non-cartesian, insubstantial. Manifestation is fundamentally dependently originated, which is empty and non-arising.
    July 25 at 5:51am · Like
    Geovani Geo Yes.And some no-thing acknowledges such fact.
    July 25 at 5:51am · Edited · Like
    Soh Zen Master Sheng Yen:

    When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the "I" does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognize that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena.
    One who has entered Chan (Zen) does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth.
    July 25 at 5:52am · Like
    Soh Insight of anatta is non-subsuming. We do not subsume everything into an X, in the same way we do not subsume 'all the colours, shapes, etc are only One Table'. We see through 'One Table' behind/within the colours. One may ask, is colour a reification? It could be, but there is a difference between description and a pointer. Saying everything is X is a kind of pointer. A pointer implies a substance, whereas a description simply describes appearances conventionally. "teaspoon bangs on a teacup, tings...Vivid, clear and present" is simply a phenomenal description but not pointing to anything noumenal/inherent.
    July 25 at 5:57am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Sort of. He is trying to refer to it as "The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena".... and I am trying to refer to it as no-thing -ness. Both are pointing to emptiness empty of all concepts of emptiness.
    July 25 at 5:57am · Edited · Like
    Soh Except the 'emptiness' in Buddhism really has nothing to do with 'no-thing-ness' or 'awareness'.


    • Emptiness is not a substance
    • Emptiness is not a substratum or background
    • Emptiness is not light
    • Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
    • Emptiness is not the Absolute
    • Emptiness does not exist on its own
    • Objects do not consist of emptiness
    • Objects do not arise from emptiness
    • Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
    • Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
    • Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind


    For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

    Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

    Nondual Emptiness Teachings
    The Heart of Now Philosophical Consultation is devoted to understanding revealing inner peace, as well insights helping with everyday problems
    July 25 at 2:23pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
    Soh Thusness years ago:

    ...the so called "Clear Aware Space" is no more special than this moment of arising sound or passing scent. The failure to recognize that all apparent arising and passing transience is non other than the Dharmakaya is the problem of all problems.

    When a pith instruction like “Relax and fully open to whatever is” is taught to a mind that is still under strong influence of dualistic tendencies, it is easy for such a mind to read and practice in the form of clinging to the “Aware Space” and shunting away from the transience, thereby setting itself infinitely apart unknowingly.

    If however there is maturity of insight that whatever arises share the same taste -- luminous yet empty (via twofold emptiness), then practice is naturally and simply unreserved opening to whatever is, it cannot be otherwise. There can be no movement, duality and preference from this to that for there is no ‘this’ that is more ‘this’ than that.

    With clear recognition and unperturbed practice of complete unreserved opening to whatever is, all transience will reveal to posses the same taste of non-dual samadhi and self-liberation that we once thought to be the monopoly of the so called “Clear Aware Space”.

    It is therefore advisable that after the direct experience and realization of the pure sense of existence, a practitioner further penetrates anatta and the empty nature of phenomena. These insights are necessary and should not be considered “long cut”. It will help a practitioner better appreciate the art of great ease in time to come.

    My 2 cents.

    The degree of “un-contrivance”,
    Is the degree of how unreserved and fearless we open to whatever is.
    For whatever arises is mind,
    always seen, heard, tasted and experienced.
    What that is not seen, not heard and not experienced,
    Is our conceptual idea of what mind is.

    Whenever we objectify the “brilliance, the pristine-ness” into an entity that is formless,
    It becomes an object of grasp that prevents the seeing of the “forms”,
    the texture and the fabric of awareness.
    The tendency to objectify is subtle,
    we let go of 'selfness' yet unknowingly grasped ‘nowness’ and ‘hereness’.
    Whatever arises merely dependently originates,
    needless of who, where and when.

    All experiences are equal, luminous yet empty of self-nature.
    Though empty it has not in anyway denied its vivid luminosity.

    Liberation is experiencing mind as it is.
    Self-Liberation is the thorough insight
    that this liberation is always and already is;
    Spontaneously present, naturally perfected!
    July 25 at 2:56pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo "...the so called "Clear Aware Space" is no more special than this moment of arising sound or passing scent. The failure to recognize that all apparent arising and passing transience is non other than the Dharmakaya is the problem of all problems." Yes, Dharmata and Dharmakaya are the same, they are non-separable. The present unfolding of seeming phenomena (Dharamata) IS Dharmakaya (the Awakened Space).... nonetheless they dont have a one to one identity, just like a segment of an infinite line IS the infinite line, non-separable from it.....but they are not identical.
    July 26 at 2:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Dharmata is the non-arising of a particular thing (dharmin), and dharmakaya is the result in the condition of the individual.
    July 26 at 2:30am · Like
    Geovani Geo Some call phenomena/life/existence something between a "birth" and a "death". The aware-space that is not separate from those goes beyond such limitations.
    July 26 at 2:45am · Edited · Like
    Soh What's seen here is that the relationship between Awareness and Phenomena is synonymous, not even inseparable (hence not even a 'relationship'). I too used to perceive/experience Awareness as being inseparable from experience in a substantialist fashion (that is, not a one to one identity). Until anatta realization cleared away all substantialist view.

    Aware Space is just another foreground manifestation no different from a sound, or a sight. One does not contain another, one does not have some kind of inherent status while another doesn't. It is seen here that there is absolutely no 'Awareness' besides manifestation -- be it formless-aware-space, or sensate-visual-sound-space, etc, all are just fully manifesting transience. Every given manifestation is fully self-luminous and fully manifest, nothing hidden, nothing underlying or residing as something behind anything.

    The "Aware Space" looks like changeless, inherent, underlying container of experience due to inherent view. It seems absolutely changeless and unaffected by everything else. But we don't realize that this taste of unmoving Aware Space is truly just another foreground perception, not a background static substratum. And due to a dualistic comparison of 'Aware Space' with other phenomena through dualistic contrast, we create a sense of 'unmoved source and substratum vs moving phenomena'. Just like due to a dualistic contrast between two cars moving at different speeds, movement is perceived. This sense is due to a dualistic thought-referencing posing as reality, it is in fact not direct experience, but our thought-constructed karmic propensities is a blinding spell that effects our very manifest perception so that it appears totally convincing and real.

    If we directly experience every sensation, thought, etc which we call 'transience', (in actual case 'Aware Space' too is another transient perception/face of clarity), in a gapless nondual fashion, then all are experienced as unmoving clarity -- in various forms.

    I just remembered I wrote something back in 29th December 2010 -- this is not very long after my initial insight into anatta. One of my e-book entries.

    29th December 2010

    If you fixate on the Formless... the sense of I AM...

    IT appears still, unmoving, present.

    Relatively, forms appear to be moving.

    BUT... it is only relatively. Means? You have dualified experience... subject vs object, permanent vs impermanent, formless vs form.
    Experience is a seamless flow. There is no impermanent vs permanent, noumenon vs phenomenon, subject vs object, etc.

    There is just this perception. This perception does not stay even if it appears to be static. Even appearances that appear static disappear. Looking at the room - there appears to be things that are stationary in comparison to things which are moving. The ground, the floor appears static relatively to the moving fan. Yet the perception we call 'floor' is actually also impermanent and is part of the seamless flow of impermanency, a seamless perception of floor, windows, ceiling, walls, etc...

    By fixating on the formless, we form the idea of Awareness as an unchanging ground of being, in which phenomena 'moves' through, or arise from. Yet we are not aware that whatever we experience is simply a perception - including even the pure sense of existence, 'I AM'... a perception that goes, that fades. Seeing it's emptiness, we stop
    forming constructs and ideas about experiences. We stop reifying a 'self', an entity, a permanency. We stop dualifying experience... we stop reifying a stable formless source from which things flow out. We stop clinging. We simply see that when condition is, experience manifest... and that is all.

    In deep sleep, everything vanishes, even the barest sense of presence, of existence.

    Even if you attain the formless jhana (absorption) of infinite space, infinite consciousness, of nothingness, or neither perception nor non perception, that jhana, state, experience can only last for kalpas and not longer.
    The luminous essence of everything is never denied: only that it is empty. To see the union of luminosity and emptiness is wisdom.
    The self-felt Certainty of Being can never be denied: yet the reification of a permanent self is seen through. What Is IS becoming... what we call Being is actually Becoming... a stream of becomings... without a 'something' becoming 'another thing'. In realizing one taste, the entire flow of 'becoming' is seen to be undeniable and certain in its luminosity and emptiness.

    When we stop the self-referencing process of solidifying the duality and inherency of things, and simply see This for what it is, we realize that...
    Like the utterly still certainty of beingness, every moment the universe stands still. Complete. Whole. Yet not permanent. It is impermanence without movement. It is a process without the continuity of an entity. Past, present and future do not apply to This. Ever just this one thought, this one sound, this one sight, this one breath. Certain and undeniable. Non-arising and non-ceasing.

    There is no ‘non-arising and non-ceasing Awareness reflecting the comings and goings of arising and ceasing phenomena’, there is just This, non-arising, non-ceasing, transient phenomena.
    July 26 at 2:52am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Soh, you are again and insistently referring to some conceptual awareness, some conceptual background that then obviously becomes just another object. That is not the case here. Lets put it this way: either there is an objectified subject and its circumscribing related objects (including a conceptual awareness, or conceptual ground of being).... or there is only objectless-Subject. You say "The Aware Space looks like changeless.." Question to you: is there only changes... or there is something changeless? Can Subject(ness), Noumenality change? this is a matter for meditation
    July 26 at 2:59am · Like
    Soh No, I am not referring to conceptual awareness. I am referring to non-conceptual awareness, which is then reified by subtle views appearing as non-conceptual reality.

    The very view that Subject-ness never changes implies that there is a truly existing Subject that is always there, always the same, it seems utterly real but is simply a flawed view of inherency. If we ask "Can Subject change", that question already has an assumption that there is a truly, inherently existing Subject. Even the non-conceptual pure sense of Existence does not need to be framed into a Subject/Object framework. Non-dual does not need to collapse into one pole, but dissolve both through emptiness.

    What's seen here is that there is absolutely no Subject/seer/perceiver/agent behind/besides the very manifestation.

    Anyway regarding "non-conceptual awareness, which is then reified by subtle views appearing as non-conceptual reality." I was just reminded of what John Tan wrote previously:

    John Tan “that analogy makes intellectual understanding seem not only useless but an unnecessary encumberance”

    Hi Priscilla, I do not see intellectual understanding as necessarily an encumbrance. Given the following scenarios:

    A) Non-conceptual experience of orange.

    B) Conceptualization/intellectualization of orange

    C) Non-conceptual experience of orange post conceptualization.

    Many of Awareness teachings see liberation as eliminating B and returning to A.


    Dharma (imo) is realizing that scenario C will never be the same as scenario A. C cannot be said to be A nor other than A and eliminating B is not necessary. The teaching of dharma is to liberate C at spot (as it is) by realizing the dependent origination of C and have experiential insight that whatever dependently originates is empty and non-arising.
    July 18 at 4:25pm · Unlike · 11
    July 26 at 4:11am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Soh, if you are referring to non-conceptual awareness then you are talking of an awareness that is a human quality... something like perception. BTW.. have you noticed that I very rarely or even did not use the word "awareness"? So I am not even sure you are talking with geo...
    July 26 at 4:14am · Like
    Geovani Geo The unchangingness of the Subject could be illustrated through an analogy: how many first person singular are there in the universe? To say that it changes would mean that it sometimes becomes other the first person. Remember: this is just a pointer, a simile, a humorous analogy.
    July 26 at 4:18am · Like
    David Vardy In the absence of subject there is no 'other than' what's happening, including the saying/reading of this, which happens to be just what's happening.
    July 26 at 4:22am · Unlike · 2
    Soh You can call it Mind, Beingness, Awareness, Consciousness, different people use different words. Some call it attributeless consciousness or Nirguna Brahman.

    The unchangingness of the Subject is based on the view that there is a Subject to begin with. But what we call "first person" is no other than the five aggregates... and the five aggregates are Buddha-Nature. At the same time we are not not denying the conventional person, we are not subsuming everything into a universal Brahman or Self, conventionally I am not you.
    July 26 at 4:22am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Only HERE, only NOW, only THIS. None of those describe anything.
    July 26 at 4:27am · Like
    Geovani Geo To posit a Subject makes no sense. There would be the need to objectify it - obviously.
    July 26 at 4:28am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Interesting, it just occurred to me that "here, now, this" are words which come in the same category as "I".
    July 26 at 4:29am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Which necessarily go out the door with Anatta (as a description of it).
    July 26 at 4:29am · Like
    Geovani Geo Exactly, Stian. The now determines this and the here. They are circular.
    July 26 at 4:30am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Anatta is not nothing, or void, or absolute vacuum
    July 26 at 4:30am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy The non-localized nature of it doesn't posit a This, Here, Now.
    July 26 at 4:31am · Like
    Geovani Geo Also makes sense
    July 26 at 4:32am · Like
    Geovani Geo Not knowing is aknowledged by something. But such something is more like no-thing
    July 26 at 4:33am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland When realized people speak of "not knowing" or similar expression, my ears perk up.
    July 26 at 4:37am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland What about the not knowing which is not acknowledged, Geovani?
    July 26 at 4:38am · Like
    David Vardy The backwaters. I hear there are allegators there.
    July 26 at 4:38am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Positing an ontological "no-thing" is missing the point Buddhism is trying to make
    July 26 at 4:41am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Geovani Geo. On one hand you're saying " To posit a Subject makes no sense. There would be the need to objectify it - obviously." and then "The unchangingness of the Subject ....." on the other.
    July 26 at 4:42am · Like
    Geovani Geo David... that is because I am not POSITING an objectified-subject.
    July 26 at 4:46am · Like
    Geovani Geo ...neither some objectified no-thing-ness.
    July 26 at 4:48am · Like
    Kyle Dixon But positing a "no-thing" is by default objectifying a "no-thing".
    July 26 at 4:49am · Like · 2
    David Vardy Your Subject is 'no-thing-ness'.....
    July 26 at 4:49am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Do you see the subtle duality in this? (Not so subtle if you see it)
    July 26 at 4:51am · Like
    Geovani Geo hahaha.... at some point anything trully makes sense
    July 26 at 4:52am · Like
    Geovani Geo No duality at all. Just as you telling some "other" geo about duality is not dual also.
    July 26 at 4:53am · Like
    Geovani Geo David, there is no duality anywhere. Everything is jsut here through these senses. Only conceptualy could one posit something that is not here - which is also here as a thought/concept.
    July 26 at 4:55am · Like
    David Vardy Dharma Combat featuring Geo doing 'rope a dope'......
    July 26 at 4:59am · Like
    Geovani Geo Are you in some combat? hmmmm.... naah..
    July 26 at 5:00am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Only conceptuality could posit something "here" as well.
    July 26 at 5:01am · Like · 1
    David Vardy No Geo. It's shadow
    July 26 at 5:01am · Like
    Geovani Geo and also a "there"...or "anywhere".. LOL
    July 26 at 5:01am · Like
    Kyle Dixon But there is no "thing" beyond which is being captured
    July 26 at 5:01am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Yes. Absolutely. There is no some real world beyond...
    July 26 at 5:02am · Like
    Geovani Geo David, the only reason you are boxing is because you heard geo speaking of some unchangingness. So now geo became your "enemy" because he is challenging some beliefs about all-changing-ness.
    July 26 at 5:05am · Like
    Soh Nice convo. Penetrating and releasing selfness.. then nowness and hereness.

    As I posted this just now:
    The degree of “un-contrivance”,
    Is the degree of how unreserved and fearless we open to whatever is.
    For whatever arises is mind,
    always seen, heard, tasted and experienced.
    What that is not seen, not heard and not experienced,
    Is our conceptual idea of what mind is.

    Whenever we objectify the “brilliance, the pristine-ness” into an entity that is formless,
    It becomes an object of grasp that prevents the seeing of the “forms”,
    the texture and the fabric of awareness.
    The tendency to objectify is subtle,
    we let go of 'selfness' yet unknowingly grasped ‘nowness’ and ‘hereness’.
    Whatever arises merely dependently originates,
    needless of who, where and when.

    All experiences are equal, luminous yet empty of self-nature.
    Though empty it has not in anyway denied its vivid luminosity.

    Liberation is experiencing mind as it is.
    Self-Liberation is the thorough insight
    that this liberation is always and already is;
    Spontaneously present, naturally perfected!"
    July 26 at 5:06am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Again Soh?
    July 26 at 5:07am · Like
    Kyle Dixon No I mean there is nothing being captured. Nothing contained within nor behind
    July 26 at 5:07am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Yes. Agree.
    July 26 at 5:08am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Geovani you're viewing things in terms of an ontological X of whatever stripe, noumenal or otherwise. The point is that this is a subtle figment of afflictive processes
    July 26 at 5:09am · Like
    Geovani Geo The story and the screen. The screen is the story.
    July 26 at 5:09am · Like
    Kyle Dixon No screen
    July 26 at 5:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle I understand what you are trying to say.
    July 26 at 5:10am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon No enduring X.
    July 26 at 5:10am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I doubt it but ok
    July 26 at 5:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo Of course I do. Do you want me to spell it?
    July 26 at 5:11am · Like
    Geovani Geo You conceive that you are the totality of phenomena, of seeming appearances... and that you are restricted to just that. I have been there
    July 26 at 5:12am · Edited · Like
    Soh A static enduring X is the restriction. It cages clarity into a particular form (even if it is the form of 'formless'). Otherwise the totality of phenomena is free, liberating, limitless, centerless.
    July 26 at 5:13am · Edited · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo I agree. To conceive a static X is illusion.
    July 26 at 5:14am · Like
    Kyle Dixon That is not what I conceive of.
    July 26 at 5:15am · Like
    Geovani Geo Please try to describe it then...
    July 26 at 5:16am · Like
    Geovani Geo " the totality of phenomena is free, liberating, limitless, centerless." Says who?
    July 26 at 5:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Says Soh, obviously.
    July 26 at 5:18am · Like
    Geovani Geo Soh? That name denotes something?
    July 26 at 5:19am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Why did you ask "says who"?
    July 26 at 5:26am · Like
    Kyle Dixon All designations denote something in their conventional applications.
    July 26 at 5:29am · Like
    Geovani Geo I asked "who" because the answer to that question says something, Kyle.
    July 26 at 5:33am · Edited · Like
    Soh Soh is like weather, a conventional label dependent on the five aggregates. No inherent soh can be found inside or behind or beyond the aggregates. The same analogies given include car, chariot, etc etc

    Toni Packer:

    "A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it.

    Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome.

    Most human beings take it totally for granted that I am "me," and that "me" is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense about myself which so obviously feels separate from other people. The language in which we talk to ourselves and to each other inevitably implies separate "me's," and "you's" all the time. All of us talk "I" and "you" talk, we think it, write it, read it, and dream it with rarely any pause. There is incessant reinforcement of the sense of "I," "me," separate from others. Isolated. Insulated. Not understood. How is one to come upon the truth if separation is taken so much for granted, feels so common sense?"

    Thusness, 2006:

    Look! The formation of the cloud, the rain, the color of the sky, the thunder, all these entirety that is taking place, what is it? It is Pristine Awareness. Not identify with anything, not bounded within the body, free from defintion and experience what is it. It is the entire field of our pristine awareness taking place with its emptiness nature.

    If we fall back to 'Self', we are enclosed within. First we must go beyond symbols and see behind the essence that takes place. Master this art until the factor of enlightenment arises and stablizes, the 'self' subsides and the ground reality without core is understood.
    July 26 at 5:34am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo So...."the totality of phenomena is free, liberating, limitless, centerless." is an aknowledgement made by what/who?
    July 26 at 5:36am · Like
    Soh The question "Who" is fine if asked on a conventional level (i.e. in which case the answer is 'Soh'), but erroneous if it is asked with an ontological assumption.

    This is what I wrote in

    Flawed Mode of Enquiry
    Posted by: Soh

    I have seen that when I say "awareness/luminosity is only everything", or "sensation is self-luminous", a doubt or question may arise in some. That questioner may ask then, "What is it that knows the experience of luminosity, but yet itself is never experienced"?

    This question is not at all unfamiliar to me, I spent two years in the past practicing self inquiry day and night - who am I? Who is aware? Before birth what am I? Who is dragging this corpse along? To whom is this I-thought occuring? Who is the source? Etc etc (it all comes down to who is the source?). In fact self inquiry was vital for my self-realization (the realization of I AMness).

    But there are two points to this:

    1. One must realize that the current way of enquiry prevents the practitioner from intuitively realizing the non-arising nature of whatever arises.

    The gnosis should not be understood this way such as "beyond", "changelessness", etc - understanding this way does not mean the practitioner realizes "something" superior; instead one is falling prey to his/her existing dualistic and inherent mode of enquiry rather than truly and directly pointing the way of immense intelligence.

    2. The second point is that, when all enquiries and views are exhausted, how is it understood?

    In other words, the way and system of enquiry already defined what you are going to experience. Therefore the mind must realize and see the futility of such mode of enquiry and any form of establishment.

    This is why self inquiry is rejected by Buddha (though I advise it for beginners as it is a very potent, powerful, and direct path to Self-Realization, it is still a provisional method that has to be dropped later for further penetration into anatta, etc) as it is based on a not-so-hidden assumption that a self must exist, so the enquiry reinforces the sense of a subjective knower, it affects and prevents the complete experience of awareness.

    As Buddha said in MN2: "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

    "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

    "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

    Having said this, I still highly recommend self-inquiry to realize I AMness. And don't be surprised if I talk solely about self-inquiry and I AMness to certain people. Today I still tell my mother to trace all thoughts and perceptions to her Source, I am teaching her to revert her awareness to itself or to her own source to discover her Self. I will only talk about Self to certain people and not talk anything at all about anatta or even non-dual. It may sound contradictory to anatta or emptiness teachings, but nonetheless it will lead to an important realization - that is the luminous essence of mind.

    As Thusness puts it in 2009, "When I talk to someone, I have specific purposes. If I want someone to have direct experience of 'I AMness', I will want him to have vivid experience of the 'I AM' Presence, and that includes the wrong understanding of inherent existence. Just like when your teacher is teaching you algebra, he or she cannot tell you about calculus. Similarly when you learn classical physics, the teacher cannot keep telling you about relativity. There is no point to keep telling you about quantum mechanics when you are studying newtonic views, for how are you going to understand quantum mechanics? You start from the newton way of understanding gravity, then slowly followed by relativity. Similarly when you study numbers, you start with discrete numbers - there is no point teaching you decimals or the rate of change, or see things as change. You see things in discrete first. If you keep telling people about wrong stuff under differing conditions, you only confuse people. I never wanted people to understand the ultimate truth, other people will lead them to the right understanding when it is appropriate. So I might talk about Advaita [e.g. I AM/One Mind realization] until the day I die, or about stage 4 to 5 insight and nothing about 6 or emptiness. The approach I employ is strictly dependently originated, it is about seeing the conditions of an individual practitioner, but whether that person understands dependent origination is another matter."
    Awakening to Reality: Flawed Mode of Enquiry
    July 26 at 5:37am · Like · Remove Preview
    Soh .............

    Update: Just found a post by Kyle Dixon (see his other articles here: in Facebook which is very relevant to this subject:

    Darryl, when one investigates the subject and object, the nature of that alleged dichotomy is what is being investigated. What are the causes and conditions that allow for these designations to be apparent, and what the nature of that seeming subject which is doing the investigation indeed is.

    The premise that the investigation itself is doomed from the start because it implies a subject relating to an object isn't allowing for an investigation, it's merely clinging to the initial presupposition that was to be investigated and doesn't even attempt to step outside of that box or play devil's advocate at all.

    The process that the emptiness investigation is proposing, allows for the subject and object etc.. to be conventional labels and titles without insisting that they indeed relate to actual objective qualities. And those objective (or subjective) qualities that we assume are being referred to are evaluated and deconstructed to reveal that they actually don't withstand scrutiny.

    The governing presuppositions must be addressed as well, for example the statement that an investigated or observed subject must be an object to that which observes it. One would have to really look at these suppositions such as a process of observation, a subject that is observed, the idea that a subject which is observed could simultaneously be a subject and also an object, what constitutes the 'subject', what constitutes the 'object', can the subjects innate knowledge of the known ever be found apart from the known and vice versa etc...

    Presuppositions of arising, abiding, falling, the notion that these sequence consecutively in time, time itself, time as memory, time as projected ideation.

    The presupposition that an appearance is an arising, that it indeed emerges from an undisclosed and/or unknowable location or state, the idea of that very triad: arising, abiding and ceasing.. being exclusively valid designations when abiding/cessation cannot be found upon the event of an arising, and arising/abiding cannot be found upon the event of cessation. A singular event in general would suggest other events, singular would suggest plural vice versa. Can arising be known, abiding be known, cessation be known.

    What is it that performs or is endowed with qualities and characteristics, what is it that performs actions, do we find something apart from the action, do we find something apart from qualities and characteristics, do we even find qualities and characteristics within imputed qualities and characteristics.

    When deconstructing ends, did it ever occur, was there indeed something deconstructed or was one's own ideation and projections all that was addressed and assessed. What is left? Does something remain when nothing stood prior, what is the soteriological benefit derived in that release, does a release or liberation happen, that would have to be predicated on bondage having existed before, is removing these notions of both bondage and liberation itself the liberation, deeming bondage and liberation themselves the bondage?

    At any rate, the rabbit hole gets deep, and you seem to be resting upon the assumption that your own presuppositions are indeed inherent and infallible. There has to be a ruthlessness to an emptiness investigation, and openness, a burning want and desire.

    The type of person that benefits from emptiness investigations is the one who ravenously pours themselves into the process like they're on fire and discovering emptiness will put that flame out. You strike me as a man who enjoys being on fire.

    But to each their own!
    Awakening to Reality: asunthatneversets
    July 26 at 5:37am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo Sorry Soh... i maybe will read all that some time later. The question what/who is already its answer.
    July 26 at 5:39am · Like
    Kyle Dixon The answer to that question may mean something to someone who is stuck in neo-advaita type logic. But with the buddhadharma conventions are allowed to be conventions, because there is no need to reject them at the hand of some type of formless absolute which is being affirmed.
    July 26 at 5:40am · Like
    Soh The question what/who is already flawed with a faulty assumption.
    July 26 at 5:40am · Like
    Soh Kyle: I believe Geovani is using 'who am I' in the self-inquiry sense to affirm the knower.
    July 26 at 5:40am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ah
    July 26 at 5:41am · Like
    Geovani Geo Yes but not a knower apart from the known
    July 26 at 5:41am · Like
    David Vardy But still a knower.....
    July 26 at 5:42am · Like
    Soh A knower inseparable from the known is still a knower.
    July 26 at 5:42am · Like
    Soh haha same post
    July 26 at 5:42am · Like
    David Vardy LOL
    July 26 at 5:42am · Like
    Geovani Geo If you say so.... It may mean lots of things to you
    July 26 at 5:42am · Like
    David Vardy JUst one.
    July 26 at 5:43am · Like
    Geovani Geo Just one. Agree
    July 26 at 5:43am · Like
    Geovani Geo Ok... I am heading for the shower. Shadow boxing makes one sweat...
    July 26 at 5:45am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon "Just one" is going to be problematic as well... but to each their own.
    July 26 at 6:22am · Like
    David Vardy Hi Kyle. When I said "just one", I was referring to the notion of the knower being inseperable from the known is still a knower. It didn't mean anything but that at the time.
    July 26 at 6:26am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle... frankly speaking.. it is just sooo easy to say "no" to statements, ideas... or whatever you wanna call them. That is why I asked you to bring forth, verbalize, expound, how do YOU see stuff. It is easy to just negate because every symbol, every word, carries implicitly its opposite. Like... "just one" is pointing to something and obviously at the same time it is implicitly pointing to its opposite. Subject is pointing to something an at the same time its opposite..etc...So in the end what you end up doing is expressing your ongoing disapproval to some "person" by understanding words either at their face value or the implicit opposite one.
    July 26 at 7:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo Soh, as you seem to like to read allot..... have you ever read Wu Hsin (2400 years ago)? Or Longchen Rabjan (~1700 years)? Or Garab Dorje (introduced Ati-Yoga/Zen in Tibet)?
    July 26 at 7:15am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I'm not "just saying no", and am not negating in the themes you are pointing out.

    I'm simply objecting to reductionist rhetoric.
    July 26 at 8:12am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Garab Dorje never taught Zen. And Longchenpa's teaching does not accord with your view.
    July 26 at 8:13am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Also, the Bön practiced Atiyoga in Tibet long before Garab Dorje, and it was Padmasambhava who brought Vajrayana and Buddhist Dzogchen to Tibet which resulted in the Buddhist-Bön hybrid we know as Tibetan Buddhism.
    July 26 at 8:24am · Like
    Geovani Geo My view? And which is my view? Describe it to me.
    July 26 at 8:50am · Like
    Geovani Geo Homage to the glorious Samantabhadra!
    Naturally occurring Timeless Awareness,
    which is utterly lucid Awakened Mind,
    is something marvelous and superb,
    primordially and spontaneously present.
    Timeless Awareness is the treasury
    out of which comes the universe of appearances and possibilities,
    whether of samsara or nirvana.
    Homage to that unwavering state of Timeless Awareness,
    which is free of elaboration.
    Timeless Awareness is the very pinnacle of spiritual approaches.
    Timeless Awareness is the expanse
    in which the sun and moon orbit the most majestic mountain.
    Timeless Awareness is the expanse of the vajra heart essence -
    spontaneously present and utterly lucid –
    the expanse of the naturally settled state
    that entails no effort or achievement.
    Listen as I explain this superb, timelessly infinite expanse. -longchempa-
    July 26 at 8:53am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo although samsara and nirvana arise naturally,
    they do not stray from Basic Space.
    Such is the blissful realm that is the true nature of phenomena. .....................Throughout the entire universe,
    all beings and all that manifests as form
    are adornments of Basic Space,
    arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened form.
    July 26 at 8:56am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Without underlying support,
    vividly apparent yet timelessly empty,
    supremely spacious, and utterly clear, just as it is,
    the universe arises
    as the adornment of the Basic Space of phenomena. .....................................................Timelessly and spontaneously present, this pure realm is without
    transition or change.
    July 26 at 8:59am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon You appear to hold an advaita type view which advocates for an unconditioned, changeless, noumenal X that is ontological in nature.
    July 26 at 8:59am · Like
    Geovani Geo "this pure realm is without transition or change." -Mr. Longchempa-
    July 26 at 9:00am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Dharmata does not move nor change because it is the lack of inherency in what delusion mistakes as conditioned entities.

    But it is not 'changeless' in the way you are misinterpreting it.
    July 26 at 9:02am · Like
    Geovani Geo Whatever arises in a dream
    due to the dynamic energy of sleep
    does not actually exist.
    There is only self-knowing Awareness,
    the blissful place of rest,
    extending infinitely
    as the supremely spacious state of spontaneous equalness. -longchempa-
    July 26 at 9:03am · Like
    Kyle Dixon There's no 'm' in Longchenpa
    July 26 at 9:03am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Oh.... that explains it all.
    July 26 at 9:03am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I'm not sure why you're posting these quotations.
    July 26 at 9:04am · Like
    Geovani Geo You said: "Longchenpa's teaching does not accord with your view."
    July 26 at 9:07am · Like
    Geovani Geo I have never quoted before... but I just could not resist this one
    July 26 at 9:08am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Right, the view you have expressing in this thread does not accord with the view Longchenpa is describing.
    July 26 at 9:11am · Like
    Geovani Geo Where exactly?
    July 26 at 9:12am · Like
    Geovani Geo If you are not able to point it out then I am obliged to understand you dont know what you are talking about
    July 26 at 9:13am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo I am talking of a lucid aware spaceless space that runs through and beyond phenomena.
    July 26 at 9:14am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon You cited numerous quotes, and I have no idea how you are interpreting them. All I know is what you have been sharing in this thread does not accord with the view of Atiyoga.
    July 26 at 9:14am · Like
    Geovani Geo With your interpretation of Atiyoga.
    July 26 at 9:15am · Like
    Geovani Geo You desagree "generally". That is too loose to mean anything.
    July 26 at 9:16am · Like
    Geovani Geo You should be able to point at least one or other points where you desagree with. Or.... are you unable to do that?
    July 26 at 9:17am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo I am talking of a lucid aware spaceless space that runs through and beyond phenomena - while you say "what is" is restricted to phenomena.
    July 26 at 9:19am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Hey Kyle...... may seem not so..... but this is fun!! Sometimes intense exchanges are the best!!!
    July 26 at 9:22am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I'm able to do that but not at the moment, I can discuss it a little later.

    But I never said what is, is restricted to phenomena. Didn't say anything in that vein actually.
    July 26 at 9:54am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Alright so I have no idea what you mean by "lucid aware spaceless space that runs through and beyond phenomena" is there a Tibetan term for that or is it sort of your own idea you're projecting onto Atiyoga?
    July 26 at 1:17pm · Like
    Soh Wu Hsin (2400 years ago)

    --> is actually a fictional figure created by a neo-Advaitin author attributing it (intentionally) misleadingly to an ancient person.
    July 26 at 2:21pm · Edited · Like
    Soh "In Dzogpa Chenpo the Intrinsic Awareness is designated as self-awareness and self-clarity. But it is free from elaborations and non-existence. So it is superior to the thoroughly established self-awareness and self-clarity of consciousness of the Yogacarya school. Longchen Rabjam explains:

    In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogacarya, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.

    As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes. Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the great spontaneously accomplished ultimate sphere, and the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it. It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School."

    - Longchen Rabjam (excerpt from "The Practice Of Dzogchen" pg. 103

    Awakening to Reality: Turiya vs Dzogchen
    Yes indeed, there is great clarity in this article in differentiating the Buddhi... See More
    July 26 at 2:19pm · Like · 4 · Remove Preview

    Kyle Dixon (asunthatneversets):

    'Space' is merely a metaphor for awakened wisdom. Like space is unconditioned, unproduced, vast, open, clear, pure, unborn, undying, unadulterated, unassailable etc. awakened wisdom is like that. Emptiness is like that.

    Emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are exactly the same (so it would actually be inaccurate to say there's two differing philosophical uses): lack of inherency, freedom from extremes, illusory, unfindability. Everything is 100% empty in Dzogchen and in Madhyamaka. Emptiness allows for process and dynamism, if things existed inherently they'd be dead, stagnant, the basis (gzhi) wouldn't be able to display itself, there would be no possibility for awakening.

    Dependent origination in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka both apply to the 12 Nidanas. Dzogchen (unlike Madhyamaka) has both (i) afflicted dependent origination; which applies to the structuring of ignorance (Skt. avidya, Tib. ma rig pa) and, (ii) unafflicted dependent origination; i.e. lhun grub which is known in vidya (Tib. rig pa). Lhun grub, which means 'not made by anyone', is spontaneous natural formation (autopoiesis), which is truly self-origination.

    Dharmakaya is the epitome of emptiness, but also signifies the condition of a Buddha. It is a total freedom from extremes so we cannot say it is the 'fundamental nature of being as awareness', if dharmakaya was 'being' it would be conditioned, so free from extremes.
    Awakening to Reality: Dzogchen Space
    July 26 at 2:58pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Soh I was just telling Stian:


    when we speak about space we must be very careful

    space as a quality of that experience, or as a metaphor for emptiness is fine

    but almost all the time people are talking about space as the inherent changeless awareness, being inseparable or being the source of all manifestation

    that is one mind

    Session Start: Saturday, March 14, 2009

    (11:50 PM) AEN: 'Nevertheless it is a very key phase'
    u mean very important key phase?
    (11:51 PM) Thusness: yeah
    (11:52 PM) AEN: icic..
    btw wats the difference between stage 4 and 5 ( other than stabilizing non dual
    (11:54 PM) Thusness: u need to face the problem to know
    it is not in words
    (11:55 PM) Thusness: because u have not experienced non-division
    (11:55 PM) Thusness: so u do not know what is non divison
    (11:55 PM) Thusness: what is no-doership and what is no agent in experience
    (11:56 PM) Thusness: and it is difficult to know what is that 'marks' that prevent the experience of spontaneity
    (11:56 PM) AEN: oic..
    (11:58 PM) Thusness: there is a different seeing thinker/thoughts as one
    (11:58 PM) Thusness: and hearer/sound as one
    then sound is awareness, no hearer
    (11:58 PM) Thusness: stage 4 is more like hearer/sound as one
    (11:59 PM) Thusness: that is why i said one thought, then another thought
    just like u, u said u feel like an open space
    (11:59 PM) Thusness: then u hear sound
    sound and awareness seem to be one
    (11:59 PM) AEN: oic..
    (12:00 AM) Thusness: indistinguishable but u cannot have that experience that there is only sound
    only in logic u have but not in experience
    (12:00 AM) Thusness: until one day u mature that experience
    (12:01 AM) AEN: icic..
    just now i saw a website from truthz's blog lists
    i mean not truthz's blog but the blog link appeared in his
    (12:02 AM) AEN:
    Correct Understanding - the first of the eight aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path - arises out of noticing the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal nature of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects. When all these phenomena are realized to be not self, the mind will turn inwards, seeking out what it might cling to as ‘me’. But if it looks with absolute clarity it will find emptiness. Behind sensations, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness, there lies clear, endless space. I sometimes call it ‘Buddha Space’.
    (12:05 AM) Thusness: yeah
    that is wrong view.
    (12:05 AM) AEN: oic..
    (12:06 AM) Thusness: it is very difficult to see the truth of this until our insight matures
    even at stage 4, it can be difficult but it is already the first steps towards anatta
    (12:06 AM) AEN: difficult to what
    see anatta?
    (12:06 AM) Thusness: yeah
    (12:06 AM) AEN: oic
    (12:07 AM) Thusness: u must see the no agent
    not only no division
    (12:07 AM) Thusness: like i told u there are 3 stages
    (12:08 AM) Thusness: later into just this non-dual luminosity
    (12:09 AM) Thusness: if u ask non-dualists, they will not realise that they are an arising thought
    (12:09 AM) Thusness: like what jeff foster said
    (12:09 AM) AEN: oic..
    (12:10 AM) Thusness: they will feel damn ultimate
    (12:10 AM) AEN: ic..
    like brahman
    (12:11 AM) Thusness: yes so they see self
    not events, process phenomena
    (12:12 AM) AEN: oic..
    (12:12 AM) Thusness: they see brahman, not sunyata
    (12:12 AM) Thusness: even the experiences are very similar
    the insight has not matured into anatta


    space as described by kyle is ok
    Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
    I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr... See More
    July 26 at 3:00pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon This one from Longchenpa is also good regarding 'space':

    "Mind itself [sems nyid] - naturally occurring timeless awareness [rang byung ye shes] - has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this' or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."
    July 26 at 3:27pm · Unlike · 7
    Geovani Geo Soh, that is interesting. Are you sure you are not confusing Wey Wu Wey with Wu Hsin? Please direct me to some link where i could clarify this. Thanks.
    July 26 at 9:20pm · Like
    Soh Wei Wu Wei is a real person called Terence Gray and could be considered neo-Advaitin, he died only a few decades ago. Wu Hsin is a fictional character created by a recent (and different) neo-Advaitin author.

    Any one who read an actual ancient Chinese text could tell that the Wu Hsin book is nothing at all like an ancient Chinese text let alone something similar to Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. Rather, it has all the hallmarks of modern Neo-Advaitism.

    Even Jackson Peterson who is not a Chinese could tell. Of course I myself being a Chinese could tell.

    Jackson Peterson Wu Hsin is a fictional character made up by an American writer..,
    May 18 at 8:58am · Like · 2
    Steven Monaco Beware of fictional characters saying things... in or out of your head. Especially from a distinct part of this planet..... and spoken in words.
    May 19 at 1:29am · Edited · Like · 3
    Reinhard Jung A truth may come from anyone
    May 19 at 3:09pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson My point is that "Wu Hsin" is a scam..,
    May 19 at 7:31pm · Like · 1
    Antonio Cinque ... Is that true, Jackson?

    What is reported to be said by him, seems to be so right on. If this is true, who really said these things, and what do you think of the 'sayings'?
    May 20 at 2:10am · Like
    Jackson Peterson The sayings are great! Trace down Wu Hsin. Read what the "author" of the book of sayings says about his book. Then you tell me..,
    May 20 at 2:15am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson No Taoist or Zen master used many of the neo-Advaita type phraseology either..,
    May 20 at 2:17am · Like · 1
    July 26 at 9:26pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle... you have copied a commentary about the meaning of metaphors form a third party author. The mentioned text continues as thus: "Though awareness is illustrated by this metaphor of space, do not take it literally to mean that awareness is reduced to some state of voidness, because metaphors illustrate things partially, but not entirely" =======IOW, it is not some voidness AND it is lucid (unlike space). Yes that is exactly what I meant. Thanks.
    July 26 at 9:34pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Soh... that seems to be the opinion of the guy. Do you have any further references? Who is the American writer that made him up? Not that it matters much but I would be interested.
    July 26 at 9:40pm · Like
    Soh It is 100% clear to me that Wu Hsin could not have existed and the text is very clearly a neo-Advaitin creation, nothing to do with ancient Chinese text.

    The word 'Xin' (heart/mind) is not even invented in that era. Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching does not even use the word "Xin" at all. Wu Xin is even much later -- the influence of Zen and Buddhism where the term "no mind" became popular. That is at least a few hundred years after the supposed 'Wu Hsin'.

    The text is very highly likely an invention of Roy Melvyn, the supposed "translator". He wrote a number of neo-Advaitin books reiterating the same stuff.
    July 26 at 10:03pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Soh, I confess that when a read Hsin books my first impression was: "wow... this ancient guy writes almost exactly like Nisargadatta...and they havent even met" Probably this writer was strongly influenced by Maharaj. The funny part is that he provides a whole historical background including biography and the such. Wei Wu Wei did not do that - he just omitted such details altogether. Anyway if you find concrete evidences please let me know
    July 26 at 10:35pm · Unlike · 1
    John Tan Hi Soh, it is possible that Wu Hsin maybe a fictional character invented by the author.

    However it is incorrect to say that the character ? (xin) wasn't invented during warring states period (403 -221 BCE) when Wu Hsin was born.

    The character ? (xin) was already in use during Mencius time as we see wide usage in his writings (372BC - 289BC). But yes the character ? (xin) may not have been invented during Lao Tze's time which is few hundred years earlier.
    July 26 at 11:16pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
    Geovani Geo Hmmmm.... actually i am indeed interested now
    July 26 at 10:45pm · Edited · Like
    John Tan Yes Geovani, his writings are beautiful and a gem to Neo-Advaita style of non-duality. Searching through his writings, I couldn't find anything mentioned about "Tao/Dao" (?) which is (imo) highly unlikely for a person during his era to involve in spirituality yet not mention about it. It is very probable he is a fictional character but if his writings resonate powerfully with ur experience, it should not matter. Shouldn't it?
    July 27 at 12:05am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Yes, essentially it doesn't matter, but if I knew he was modern I probably would not even touch it. Presently, when I read something - which is rare these days - I prefer the ancient ones. Very rarely I am attracted to modern "gurus". But I am not totally convinced about the fake Hsin yet. China is very big.... at those times it was much much bigger in terms of inter-relations and communication. Perhaps just like Chinese medicine that evolved as different schools in different families.....maybe this Hsin fellow was some kind of a self-learned guy. I will look up the historical content of the book - if I find it somewhere.
    July 27 at 1:19am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Geovani, you carry an eternalist view, it does not resemble what Longchenpa is discussing, but to each their own.
    July 27 at 2:02am · Like
    John Tan 2500 yrs ago, one thought.

    2500 yrs later, still one thought.

    Neither same nor different.

    Yet the ancient always feels so much more precious and mysterious.

    Happy seeking, Geovani!
    July 27 at 2:09am · Unlike · 4
    David Vardy There aren't any other translations are there? Unless Roy Melvyn found the writings buried in his backyard it does appear to point to a single author.
    July 27 at 2:11am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo John, having understood/realized teh nature of existence (in the lack of better words) are continuously free of ego-thoughts, ongoingly free of delusion?
    July 27 at 3:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle, I dont know what is an eternalist view in the light of timeless-ness. Could you clarify?
    July 27 at 3:12am · Like
    Geovani Geo John, I read the ancients like some others collect stamps or play chess or build model planes. Out of pure joy. Even this is subject to criticism? Tells somethng about you...
    July 27 at 3:14am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Eternalist means you believe there is an ontological X like the changeless noumenon you've discussed.
    July 27 at 3:17am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo David, seems so.
    July 27 at 3:17am · Like
    Geovani Geo Nope, Kyle. I dont believe. Beliefs are just that: concepts, ideas. I am the noumenon - who the hell else?There are no others
    July 27 at 3:21am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy To state 'I am the noumenon" is just what Kyle is referring to.
    July 27 at 3:24am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo JOhn, 2500 years ago... today... the very same stuff. But you still read the forums posts. Good luck in your seeking budy
    July 27 at 3:25am · Like
    Geovani Geo That was so predictable, David..c'mon...To state or not state we are not stating anything anyway. No matter what we say nothing changes
    July 27 at 3:28am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Right, "I am the noumenon" is also a subtle structure of delusion.

    "There are no others" is also nihilism. Others are allowed conventional legitimacy.
    July 27 at 3:30am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo You win Kyle.
    July 27 at 3:30am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Geovani, this is why your view does not resemble Atiyoga.
    July 27 at 3:31am · Like
    Geovani Geo Actually... why would anyone want to resemble anything?
    July 27 at 3:32am · Like
    Kyle Dixon It's not about winning or losing but being clear as to what is being discussed.
    July 27 at 3:32am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo C'mon Kyle.... this has deteriorated to a comedy some time ago..
    July 27 at 3:33am · Like
    David Vardy Seeing that noumenon doesn't exist apart from being a concept is key here. It's a conceptual placeholder to prolong a duality that doesn't exist as such.
    July 27 at 3:33am · Like
    Geovani Geo Are you really willing to talk seriouisly?
    July 27 at 3:33am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Not really.
    July 27 at 3:33am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Why are you going on then?
    July 27 at 3:34am · Like
    Geovani Geo There is no such thing as noumenon as a concept. That would be a phenomenon - obvioulsy
    July 27 at 3:34am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Talk seriously about what? I asked earlier what Tibetan term you were referring to with your spaceless space that goes through phenomena and you obviously didn't have one because that isn't something that Dzogchen says.
    July 27 at 3:35am · Like
    Kyle Dixon There is no such thing as an inherent noumenon, period.
    July 27 at 3:36am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Waht does noumenon mean?
    July 27 at 3:36am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo And what about phenomenon? Does that exist?
    July 27 at 3:38am · Like
    Geovani Geo You wont believe it.... but this is meditation for me. And joy....
    July 27 at 3:41am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy Geo. Did you see how the quote Kyle posted of Lonchenpa virtually cancelled out the quotes you posted of his? It points to the absence of an inherent noumenon which isn't obvious in your quotes.
    July 27 at 3:42am · Like
    Geovani Geo Did you read my reply to that? read it.
    July 27 at 3:43am · Like
    Geovani Geo Here it is: ===>Kyle... you have copied a commentary about the meaning of metaphors form a third party author. The mentioned text continues as thus: "Though awareness is illustrated by this metaphor of space, do not take it literally to mean that awareness is reduced to some state of voidness, because metaphors illustrate things partially, but not entirely" =======IOW, it is not some voidness AND it is lucid (unlike space). Geo says: Yes that is exactly what I meant. Thanks.
    July 27 at 3:45am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo David... you remind me of HoM or LU. Dont know why LOL!!
    July 27 at 3:47am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy I've only dropped in there here and there. Can't respond to
    July 27 at 3:48am · Like
    Geovani Geo So.... have you read my reply to Kyle above?
    July 27 at 3:49am · Like
    David Vardy Yes. Haven't replied to it,
    July 27 at 3:49am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Do it NOW or you will be expeled!! LOL LOL LOL
    July 27 at 3:50am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Someone in another group asked me to do the same. Should I flip a coin?
    July 27 at 3:50am · Like
    Geovani Geo Same what?
    July 27 at 3:51am · Like
    David Vardy Do it NOW
    July 27 at 3:51am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo LOL
    July 27 at 3:51am · Like
    Geovani Geo Empty Mirror can be hilarious sometimes
    July 27 at 3:52am · Like
    Geovani Geo Back to the issue at hand Actually there is only noumenon, so there is no way to split it into another conceptual noumenon. That would make two of them. Actually such splitting into two noumenons (one conceptual) is the very essence of delusion. The dream of false noumenality and its related phenomena makes up samsara.
    July 27 at 4:01am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo UFA!!! I got a thumbs up from David!!! hurrray!!!
    July 27 at 4:03am · Like
    David Vardy That's what was being suggested, but there can't be a 'real' noumenon is the point, apart from an absence of the phenomenon/noumenon dichotomy, all dichotomies for that matter.....subject/object whatever. But that absence doesn't exist as such.
    July 27 at 4:05am · Like
    Kyle Dixon It's not exactly what you meant because you have an advaita type view and don't appear to understand the principle the nature of mind is meant to convey.
    July 27 at 4:08am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon I'm not sure what third party author you are referring to.
    July 27 at 4:09am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I'm saying your fundamental view upholds divergent principles to Atiyoga, yet you are interpreting Atiyoga as if it matches your fundamental view.
    July 27 at 4:14am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo No dichotomy whatsoever is the point. As I said earlier either dichotomy as subject/object or no dichotomy at all as..... (you call it absence)... I am quite open to any name because I know perfectly well that no name will do the job here. Some use subject, others noumenon, awareness, lucid-space..etc... I dont see much difference between those names and the one you are using (absence). But I have my own prejudices about names: I twist my nose to god, jesus, brahaman.... not because I dont like the sound but because they are so charged with different interpretations throughout the ages that it is already impossible to clean them. Once the naming stuff is overcome one can eventually dance around its meaning in order to converge to something beyond words. That iw where fun is
    July 27 at 5:14am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Kyle, to me atiyoga is the direct path. Get acquainted with the view and remain with it. The means and the goal are the same. The remaining with it is the means and the end. Period. If that is not atiyoga I dont give a shit
    July 27 at 5:16am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Right but you're positing an actually truly existent non-duality. An ontological X which is free of dichotomies. A oneness or single awareness, subject, noumenon, lucid-space etc.

    Whereas the Atiyoga, for example, is not... that is the issue.
    July 27 at 5:19am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo So... the most important is to get correctly acquainted with the view for w/o that there is nowhere to "anchor" your practice/goal.
    July 27 at 5:19am · Like
    Geovani Geo What does the atiyoga say in this regard? How does it establishes the view?
    July 27 at 5:20am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Right but that "view" is the nature of mind... not an ontological noumenon.
    July 27 at 5:21am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon What does Atiyoga say in what regard?
    July 27 at 5:22am · Like
    Geovani Geo Right, lets call it Mind. But such Mind is also Mind-made... so there is no Mind at all. So we remain with..... with.... how do you like to call it?
    July 27 at 5:22am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo In regard to.....what truly is or is not? Waht is the correct view?
    July 27 at 5:24am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Would you say that garab dorje and longchenpa are from a pure atiyoga lineage?
    July 27 at 5:29am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Garab Dorje was a Nirmanakaya, didn't really belong to a lineage per se, and yes Longchenpa is an integral figure to Dzogchen.
    July 27 at 5:35am · Like
    Geovani Geo "Mind" is an expedient means to equalize phenomena into a single natured thing... in this case Mind-natured. But as Mind is also Mind-natured it is also gone into the equalized mix. Now its here where the game becomes interesting. Having eliminated MInd we are left with just what is. Let me check out how Longchenpa dalled it....
    July 27 at 5:38am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo And do you like/accept longchenpa's way of expressing/explaining things? Would not longchenpa also be a Nirmanakaya, apart from being from one or other lineage?
    July 27 at 5:40am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo ...yes...rabjan called it Basic Space of Phenomena or The Ultimate Sphere and.... it seems a few other ones. Do you like them?
    July 27 at 5:59am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I surely accept Longchenpa's expositions as correct, just not your interpretation of them.
    July 27 at 6:02am · Like
    Kyle Dixon The "basic space of phenomena" is Barron's translation of dharmadhatu.
    July 27 at 6:03am · Like · 1
    David Vardy And even that could be interpreted as 'the basic space of which phenomena is' as a description of phenomena as opposed to a container in which phenomena appears, but that would be stretching it a bit.
    July 27 at 6:09am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Yes not a container in which phenomena appear, it is the emptiness of phenomena, the basic nature or element of phenomena.

    The most fundamental aspect of conventional phenomena is their non-arising, that "realm" or space, vision, knowledge etc., of non-arising encountered in direct experience is a direct encounter with the dharmadhatu.
    July 27 at 6:15am · Unlike · 6
    Geovani Geo The nature of the game is not discussing what word could be interpreted as what..... but getting rid of all interpretations. Cleaning such basic space of ALL conceptual debris. This can not be done as a dispute but more like an exchange of "helping hands" in a trip into non-personality and non-conceptuality.
    July 27 at 6:15am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Yes Kyle. Well expressed. There is no conteiner... and phenomena are empty natured.
    July 27 at 6:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon "The nature of the game is not discussing what word could be interpreted as what"

    This is true but at the same time it is important to relate to these teachings in their own context, or the context they are meant to be approached in. Otherwise we end up importing divergent views into the system and miss the fundamental meaning or view the system is seeking to express.

    "but getting rid of all interpretations"

    Definitely not, that is very dangerous... and as you can see scholars like Longchenpa and others had no issue whatsoever working with interpretations, concepts and so on.
    July 27 at 6:18am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon "There is no conteiner... and phenomena are empty natured."

    Which means there is no changeless noumenon... everything is empty top to bottom, meaning non-arisen, completely unreal. There is nothing that you are... no noumenon which is impervious to concepts, nothing like that.
    July 27 at 6:20am · Unlike · 5
    Geovani Geo IOW: we must be clear upon nomenclature. In this case it seems we must converge to an already existing language. I might not be perfectly well versed - nonetheless that should not be some great obstacle. You can always clear confusing words.
    July 27 at 6:21am · Like
    Geovani Geo Whe you say "nothing like that" you close the door. You are not even open to the possiblity of clarification.
    July 27 at 6:22am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Yes but the fundamental meaning the words are meant to express and convey is what is important.

    For instance, the interpretation you have been offering of a changeless noumenon etc. or pointing to the formless knower or awareness which is beyond everything and pervades everything is 100% contradictory to the view Dzogchen upholds.
    July 27 at 6:23am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Close the door on what? Dzogchen closes these doors itself and is adamantly against such views. Even going out of its way to critique and refute such views in its tantras so that it distances itself from those views.
    July 27 at 6:24am · Like
    Geovani Geo OK, lets look at this peace from The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena just to get used to the language:---------------------------------------------------------- "Throughout the entire universe, all beings and all that manifests as form are adornments of Basic Space, arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened form. What is audible, all sounds and voices without exception, as many as there may be, are adornments of Basic Space,
    arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened speech. All consciousness and all stirring and proliferation of thoughts,
    as well as the inconceivable range of nonconceptual states,
    are adornments of Basic Space..."
    July 27 at 6:33am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle's interpretation of "Dzogchen closes these doors itself". You are not the owner of its meaning. You may just as well be deluded by your own personal beliefs about it - like anyone else, potentially. Right? You may have a set of concepts that you call Dzogchen. It can know...
    July 27 at 6:38am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo But... I would like to hear other forum member's ideas upon the issue, because if i find myself as being just an "intruder" disturbing the peace of some established Dzogchen forum or personal policy... I will leave. Sofar it seems I am the only one "contender" here...
    July 27 at 6:43am · Edited · Like · 1
    David Vardy Geo....... a different way of approaching this translation. I'm just looking at the one you quoted and coming up with another here, food for thought. "Throughout the entire universe, all beings and all that manifests as form are this Basic Space, arising as this ongoing principle of enlightened form. What is audible, all sounds and voices without exception, as many as there may be, are this Basic Space, arising as this ongoing principle of enlightened speech. All consciousness and all stirring and proliferation of thoughts, as well as the inconceivable range of nonconceptual states, are this Basic Space..."
    July 27 at 6:48am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo I state that there is an unchanging factor in what IS. From here it is obvious. Does anyone else share this kind of perception and would like to comment?
    July 27 at 6:49am · Like
    Geovani Geo David.. you made the modifications or it is an alternate translation?
    July 27 at 6:51am · Like
    David Vardy I did.
    July 27 at 6:51am · Like
    Geovani Geo LOL
    July 27 at 6:52am · Like
    David Vardy Like I said food for
    July 27 at 6:52am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Uh, why would you leave? You seem to be taking this a little far if that is the conclusion you come to.
    July 27 at 6:53am · Like
    Geovani Geo As a food for thought is OK. I would accept such interpretation under certain circumstances
    July 27 at 6:53am · Like
    Geovani Geo I would leave Kyle because I do this for fun. When i find myself as a kind of Don Quixote fighting a lone battle against what i feel to be a solid set of collective beliefs... it gets boring.. and the fun part ends. I need to feel that there is not some implicit set of forum policies and that I am the only one that disagree with.
    July 27 at 7:02am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon The quote you just cited:

    "Throughout the entire universe, all beings and all that manifests as form are adornments of Basic Space, arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened form. What is audible, all sounds and voices without exception, as many as there may be, are adornments of Basic Space,
    arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened speech. All consciousness and all stirring and proliferation of thoughts,
    as well as the inconceivable range of nonconceptual states,
    are adornments of Basic Space..."

    This is perfectly in line with the usual presentation of the dharmadhatu. Conventionally things arise from the dharmadhatu etc., however this is just a way to communicate the fact that apparent things are never separate from their emptiness. The nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, so this is a pointer that the nature of phenomena should not be sought apart from phenomena.

    The idea is quite different from the idea of an existent ontological principle such as the purusha of Advaita that 'things' arise from and are not separate from. That is a unified ontological field and things are subsumed into that capacity, which is held to be the 'real' whereas its expressions are secondary to it.

    The dharmadhatu represents the fact that so-called conditioned phenomena have never arisen to begin with. They are figments of delusion. So like mistaking a reflection to be a real thing, we mistake appearance to be actual entities which have arisen, abide and endure in time and will eventually cease. The dharmadhatu is the 'unconditioned' nature of those allegedly conditioned entities, which is the fact that they aren't really conditioned entities... conditioned entities are a misconception. So when this is directly recognized, it is seen that said entities have never arisen in the first place, and that is seeing their non-arising. But it is not seeing an ontological uber-source that they come from... because the 'unconditioned' is just a conventional pointer. Because we are deluded and see conditioned entities, the 'unconditioned' is a pointer to say 'no these things are in fact byproducts of afflictive causes and conditions'.... when you recognize their nature you will have a correct knowledge of those appearances and will never again mistake them to be conditioned entities (meaning something which exists, lacks existence, both or neither).

    So the dharmadhatu means there is ultimately no 'ultimate', nor 'relative' etc., and nothing which inherently remains in the end.
    July 27 at 7:04am · Unlike · 3
    David Vardy It should probably have a 'neither is nor not different from' in it, but the idea is just to look at it differently.
    July 27 at 7:04am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo "So the dharmadhatu means there is ultimately no 'ultimate', nor 'relative' etc., and nothing which inherently remains in the end" ====Kyle, the other name of this same text from longch. is "The Precious Treasure On The Ultimate Sphere" LOL...LOL..... ULTIMATE SPHERE!!
    July 27 at 7:09am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo But OK. Lets put the cards on the table. i disagree with you and your interpretation. I say there is an ultimate, I say there is the unchanging. i say our real nature IS the basic space of awareness,, and I say there is only noumenon. I say our real nature goes through, around, bellow and above the field of appearances. I say such field of seeming appearances is the ever-changing dream of unchanging basic space of phenomena.
    July 27 at 7:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Yes that ultimate sphere is the dharmakaya... but you're not understanding the implications of this still, apparently.
    July 27 at 7:17am · Like
    Geovani Geo Apparently. I am ready to discuss it though. But not based on dogmatic negative beliefs... but an open inquisitive mind. If that is possible....
    July 27 at 7:20am · Like
    Kyle Dixon "Since there is no ultimate, also the name 'relative' does not exist."
    - The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra
    July 27 at 7:22am · Unlike · 2
    Kyle Dixon I've presented no negative beliefs nor dogma, simply what the system we are discussing says.
    July 27 at 7:23am · Like
    Kyle Dixon The lack of an ultimate just means that the 'ultimate' is the non-arising of the relative... which isn't a 'thing', but is an epistemic recognition... a valid cognition.
    July 27 at 7:38am · Unlike · 4
    Kyle Dixon And even then that cognition is of course merely conventional itself, it is ultimately empty and free from extremes.
    July 27 at 7:40am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Atiyoga and the buddhadharma in general is an epistemic methodology implemented for soteriological purposes. It is therefore prescriptive... and not descriptive like an ontological view would suggest.
    July 27 at 7:49am · Like · 4
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hey Geovani. Do go on
    July 27 at 7:59am · Like · 3
    Geovani Geo Yea... well it is my conviction that battle of quotes doesn't work.. it is counter-productive to promote understanding. I also believe that discussing systems like atiyoga for example may also be an impediment because depends on interpretation. Longchempa has more then 1000 pages of written stuff. it would be ridiculous to compare quotes from such an extensive work. My proposition is to start a whole new thread where we can discuss based solely on personal first hand experience in the present moment. So I propose that messages should contain a minimum of quotes and/or references on philosophical systems. I think we have views that run parallel at times, run together at other times and are diverging on other. Could be interesting to investigate where one or the other might be mistaken. Huuuhhh?
    July 27 at 8:07am · Like · 1
    David Vardy
    July 27 at 8:17am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Definitely more than 1,000 pages... what is translated in english is the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous expositions which remain untranslated.

    Actually, the writings we currently have translated into english when it comes to Dzogchen is a mere sliver compared to what remains untranslated.
    July 27 at 8:33am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo I use his writings as a means for meditation - while I am reading them. Just finished old man basking in the sun for the second time... and also others. I read and am immediately meditating effortlessly.
    July 27 at 8:37am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon I'm all for a thread which discusses our experiences based on direct experiential insights.

    The only reason I'm being a stickler with the Dzogchen is that the system is very, very specific in its view. And goes to great lengths to define that view, even at the expense of other views.

    All I'm saying is that when you say "Atiyoga", that means a specific system predicated on a specific insight and view, it isn't really something open to interpretation so much. You don't see various interpretations which are divergent from the masters... all of their expositions match and are in harmony with one another. So it isn't a laissez faire type thing where we can just say, oh I like this interpretation I'll just say whatever I wish about it. That is my only point.
    July 27 at 8:41am · Like
    Kyle Dixon It just depends... the view of the gnas lugs mdzod which is titled "Old Man Basking in the Sun" by Keith Dowman, is Longchenpa's exposition on the result, or the complete and unobscured knowledge of wisdom. That is the perfected "view", the highest wisdom of buddhahood as a lived experience for Longchenpa... you and I however are not buddhas, we are sentient beings on the path and/or are aspirants aiming to recognize the basis. So we of course have to be honest with ourselves in that respect.
    July 27 at 8:46am · Like
    Geovani Geo I deleted this post in order to change it. I felt something weird with the expression "we". Is it some kind of collection of "I"s? But such collection is just an idea... is it not?
    July 27 at 10:08am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon The conventional path, praxis, process is applied to conventional sentient beings, hence 'we', us, he, she, they etc., are all valid as well in that context.
    July 27 at 10:11am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo You mean like..... an entity inside this sentient being as an "I".....another assumed entity inside that other being over there as some "you" or "he/she"?
    July 27 at 10:14am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I mean conventional reality. You are Geovani, I am Kyle, I'm not you, you aren't me. I'm in a certain location you're in another, you have a personal experience, I have mine. This is conventional reality.

    Ultimate reality is the non-arising of all of that. The fact that the conventional is just conventional and does not refer to inherent things.

    So there is total freedom to say I do this, you do that, we are sentient beings... because it goes without saying that everything is ultimately non-arisen. Hence, no reason to grasp at negations on the level of the conventional, because that is no better than affirming those conventions... that is failing to understand conventions for what they are and mistaking them to be inherent.
    July 27 at 10:21am · Unlike · 5
    Geovani Geo Right... jsut language-wise.
    July 27 at 10:22am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Principles like this are vital for Buddhist systems, otherwise you end up with weak neo-advaita lines of logic which have to say "oh there's no I", "there's no you", "there's no self or objects"... That is just the mind reifying delusional constructs.
    July 27 at 10:23am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Not just language wise... your conventional experience is deeply engrained as a relative experience. Those karmic propensities aren't just linguistic.
    July 27 at 10:25am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Yea that is clear. We dont need to talk weird like avoiding I and you and he or she.
    July 27 at 10:25am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Our relative experiences are not real, but as long as we are under the influence of afflictive patterning we relate to a relative experience.

    The aim is to recognize the unreality of the relative... the relative's unreality is the ultimate.

    However even then conventions are still used... it is just from that standpoint it is explicitly known that conventions are mere inferences. But the fact they are inferential now also means we can relate to them in a free and easy way.
    July 27 at 10:35am · Unlike · 4
    Soh "John, I read the ancients like some others collect stamps or play chess or build model planes. Out of pure joy. Even this is subject to criticism? Tells somethng about you..."

    You are misunderstanding John's statement. It is not a criticism. If anything, Buddhists would criticise the neo-Advaita "drop the seeking" rhetoric. Seeking is not wrong in Buddha-dharma, according to the teachings of Buddha we should seek until we completely accomplished the path and attained either full arahantship or full Buddhahood, of which, I do not know of any single living person today (not that there aren't -- I just haven't known or met any one yet, and certainly not in this group) who has that level of attainment, though arahantship used to be very common in the Buddha's days. Generally the Buddhist practitioners today I've seen only attain up to stream entry level of awakening (or perhaps a few who are once returner?).

    Even after attaining the stream entry level of awakening, or once returner, or non returner, more work needs to be done. What is wrong is not seeking (especially if the seeking is pertaining to the path and leads to right exertion/effort in practice), but rather, to drop seeking too early or reject practices. In the Mahayana model, there is likewise 10/13/16 bhumis, even in Dzogchen the four visions which also corresponds to the bhumis, etc etc. Before that, one needs to practice very seriously. Even after Buddhahood practice goes on but mostly for "pleasant abiding" and as an inspiration to other practitioners.

    We have a very different view of things than the modern neo-Advaitin sort of teachings, which may be helpful for some, but certainly cannot be equated with the Buddhadharma.

    Therefore, when John said "happy seeking", he is certainly not making any some sort of criticism. He informed me that he was quite perplexed at your response. I am also aware that John reads ancient scriptures like Lankavatara Sutra and loved them.

    p.s. as scriptures state:

    SN 51.15
    PTS: S v 271
    CDB ii 1732
    Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman
    translated from the Pali by
    Thanissaro Bhikkhu
    © 1997

    I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's Park. Then the Brahman Unnabha went to where Ven. Ananda was staying and on arrival greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Ananda: "Master Ananda, what is the aim of this holy life lived under Gotama the contemplative?"

    "Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."

    "Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

    "Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."

    "What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

    "Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."

    "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

    "In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

    "Yes, sir."

    "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"

    "Yes, sir."

    "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"

    "Yes, sir."

    "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"

    "Yes, sir."

    "So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"

    "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
    Lost in samsara
    July 27 at 3:28pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Soh From my recent article

    ...However, it is unfortunate that very often, people who have not even realized emptiness (but may have realized the aspect of unconditioned Clarity/Awareness) can often be tricked into thinking of himself as "I got it". Even the neo-Advaitin/Zen teacher Adyashanti have made a related remark, "Whenever you touch upon a deep truth, suchness of reality, your true nature, each aspect feels like it's total and complete and all-inclusive at that moment. So that's why teachers have a very hard time getting through to people when they have an initial experience of anything because if it's an initial experience of reality it feels totally complete and there is a certain innate confidence that arises within you. Not an egoic confidence but a confidence that comes from reality." I will also add, very often that experiential confidence does in fact translate into an egoic kind of confidence. The "I got it syndrome" translates into "I know it all syndrome", so one has effectively shut down from further learning and practice.

    Yet another neo-Advaitin teacher Vishrant said in a talk where he described 'awareness of awareness' as merely a kindergarten stage of awakening, "the teachers that are flying in and out and telling people they are awake are actually misleading people. The terrible side of that is when somebody is told they are awake, the ego grasps it and says, 'I am awake', and then stop seeking, and then these people stop looking because they think they've already found. So it cuts off their chances for ongoing awakening. It's very sad."

    If even these neo-Advaitin teachers are clear about this pitfall, so much more must Buddhists (and other traditions like traditional Advaita) take heed and be aware of our kleshas!

    If we are clear about our many faces of karmic propensities, we will know the path ahead. If we are ignorant of them, or in denial of them, or cling to the Absolute, then there is no way we will ever experience its release. There is no way, no chance at all, for someone ignorant of their karmic propensities or the four noble truths to experience Nirvana. They are not even on the path towards its release because they do not even see the afflictions/propensities, nor the cause of the afflictions, nor the end or path that ends afflictions.

    Very often if one is blind to karmic propensities, one can also fall into a nihilistic attitude -- a denial or rejection of a path, or a denial or rejection of suffering, afflictions, etc.

    First we need to know the faces of self/Self, I, me, mine, inherency. Then we need to scan our entire body mind for any clinging and contraction and grasping... fully touch the dharma of clinging and afflictions. This is a moment to moment practice.. very often various afflictions only manifest in the presence of secondary conditions (the primary condition is ignorance). Get intimate with afflictions, with karmic propensities, with delusion. It's ok.. you won't be harmed as there never was a you separate from these afflictions anyway, so any sort of avoidance or dissociation is simply another form of delusion and affliction. But through wisdom into its true (luminous and empty) nature they are allowed to release.
    Awakening to Reality: The Pathologies of Insights (Determinism, Solipsism, Disease of...
    My question is only vaguely related to this post, but I figured this is a fine p... See More
    July 27 at 3:45pm · Edited · Like · 5 · Remove Preview
    Soh "David... you remind me of HoM or LU. Dont know why LOL!!"

    Certainly not like HoM. The insight of anatta that David and many here are expressing is without subsuming, whereas HoM subsumes everything into Self and rejects 'others'. We only reject inherently existing/changeless self/Self, just the inherency of Self, we do not reject conventional selves and so I am I, you are you and you are not I. Convention here in the sense of labels, imputations, like 'weather', 'car', 'water' etc. We certainly do not say "you are Me or everything is I". We do not say there are no others from the conventional standpoint, and we certainly do not say there is only Me from an ultimate standpoint (the ultimate truth in Buddhism is for all self/phenomena/conventions be empty of inherent existence).

    Yet there is absolutely no inherently existing Self, or Agent, that is existing changelessly that is experiencing phenomena or standing apart from phenomena or even 'inseparable from phenomena', therefore 'in the seen just the seen' with no you/You in terms of 'that'. HoM is not about Anatta, but a kind of substantialist nondual subsuming. As for LU, from what I am aware of, mostly they discuss no-self pertaining to the aspect of impersonality and non-doership. But anatta is not just about that. As I discussed before, there are many faces of self/Self to be seen through and penetrated for full release. I addressed my terminologies like non-doership, impersonality, anatta etc recently in
    Awakening to Reality: Insight Diagnosis Simplified
    July 27 at 4:01pm · Edited · Like · 4 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon And following Soh's post above; the same goes for Dzogchen and it is such an important point to understand:

    Löpon Tenzin Namdak states:
    "If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

    Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."
    July 27 at 4:05pm · Edited · Unlike · 3
    Kyle Dixon Watching how clinging unfolds moment by moment really reveals how deeply entrenched karmic patterns are.

    Longchenpa writes of "ordinary deluded diffusion", which is the undercurrent of habitual tendency that plays out incessantly in sentient beings, usually completely unnoticed (or simply taken as 'normal'). Chögyal Namkhai Norbu urges his senior students to be especially vigilant about that general dispersion of thought, which means beginners must be mindful of that patterning even more so.

    Afflictive causes and conditions are incredibly subtle... genuine insight of course puts them into perspective and can diminish their potency, however unless one has completely exhausted their karma (which only Buddhas have) they still need to remain mindful of their karmic propensities.
    July 27 at 4:25pm · Unlike · 5
    Soh "But... I would like to hear other forum member's ideas upon the issue, because if i find myself as being just an "intruder" disturbing the peace of some established Dzogchen forum or personal policy... I will leave. Sofar it seems I am the only one "contender" here..."

    For the record this is not a Dzogchen forum but a Buddhadharma forum where teachings of Buddha as well as the various Buddhist traditions and teachings, Dzogchen being part of it, is welcomed to be discussed.

    Furthermore no person has been banned in this group for holding a differing opinion or view. The only instances where people are banned are due to issues like posting inappropriate contents, advertisements, pertinent personal attacks, i.e. veering away from constructive dharma discussions. There's nothing in what you write that indicates you're going in that direction.

    Debates are fine and welcomed. There is no policy like certain groups where disagreement = instant ban or what not.
    July 27 at 4:37pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Soh you are categorizing me as some "neo-advaita". I dont know what that is because I never studied advaita or any other philosophy deeply. Everything I read or talk about with friends is assimilated as present "being" (or not-being if one prefers) and being is neither advaita, Buddhist, Zen... or neo-advaita. What is has no nationality or philosophic origin. Teh moment you are addressing some neo-advaita you are addressing an imagined classified and pre-conceived group-personality - where there might be none.
    July 27 at 6:54pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Sure, I'm just saying that the sort of notion that seeking/learning/practices is to be shunned is not supported in the Buddhadharma.
    July 27 at 6:56pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Nonetheless Buddha told a meditator that polishing a brick will not make it a mirror - never. But of course I get your point.... You kick yourself over and over and over untill tou wake up and see there is no need to be kicked.
    July 27 at 7:00pm · Edited · Like
    Soh No, that was not taught by Buddha. It's taught by Zen teacher Baso and Nangaku. It should not be misinterpreted however..

    Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha
    Zazen-Only - Polishing Tiles, Making Buddhas
    The perfection of each person is unique; a particular human becomes a Buddha when that human wholly becomes that particular human. The Buddhahood of an individual being is the perfection of the “integral character” of that particular being “as it is.” Zazen-only is the perfection of the “normal mind,” that is, a particular body-mind that is fully seated in and as the wholeness of its particular existence ceaselessly advancing in harmony with the true nature of its own integral character. One of the clearest of Dogen’s numerous presentations of this aspect of the Buddha Dharma is revealed in one of his masterly commentaries on a classic Zen koan.

    One day when Nangaku came to Baso’s hut, Baso stood up to receive him. Nangaku asked him, “What have you been doing recently?”

    Baso replied, “Recently I have been doing the practice of seated meditation exclusively.”

    Nangaku asked, “And what is the aim of your seated meditation?”

    Baso replied, “The aim of my seated meditation is to achieve Buddhahood.”

    Thereupon, Nangaku took a roof tile and began rubbing it on a rock near Baso’s hut.

    Baso, upon seeing this, asked him, “Reverend monk, what are you doing?”

    Nangaku replied, “I am polishing a roof tile.”

    Baso then asked, “What are you going to make by polishing a roof tile?”

    Nangaku replied, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”

    Baso said, “How can you possibly make a mirror by rubbing a tile?”

    Nangaku replied, “How can you possibly make yourself into a Buddha by doing seated meditation?”

    For hundreds of years now, many people have held the view that, in this story, Nangaku is earnestly endeavoring to encourage Baso in his practice. This is not necessarily so, for, quite simply, the daily activities of the great saintly teacher were far removed from the realm of ordinary people. If great saintly teachers did not have the Dharma of polishing a tile, how could they possibly have the skillful means to guide people? Having the strength to guide people is the Bones and Marrow of an Ancestor of the Buddha. Even though the tile was the thing that came to hand, still, it was just an everyday, household object. If it were not an everyday object or some household utensil, then it would not have been passed on by the Buddha’s family. What is more, its impact on Baso was immediate. Be very clear about it, the functioning of the True Transmission of Buddhas and Ancestors involves a direct pointing. We should truly comprehend that when the polished tile became a mirror, Baso became Buddha. And when Baso became Buddha, Baso immediately became the real Baso. And when Baso became the real Baso, his sitting in meditation immediately became real seated meditation. This is why the saying ‘polishing a tile to make a mirror’ has been preserved in the Bones and Marrow of former Buddhas.

    Thus it is that the Ancient Mirror was made from a roof tile. Even though the mirror was being polished, it was already without blemish in its unpolished state. The tile was not something that was dirty; it was polished simply because it was a tile. On that occasion, the virtue of making a Mirror was made manifest, for it was the diligent effort of an Ancestor of the Buddha. If polishing a tile did not make a Mirror, then even polishing a mirror could not have made a Mirror. Who can surmise that in this act of making, there is the making of a Buddha and there is the making of a Mirror?

    Further, some may wonder, “When the Ancient Mirror is polished, can It ever be polished into a tile?” Your state of being—your breathing in and breathing out—when you are engaged in polishing is not something that you can gauge at other times. And Nangaku’s words, to be sure, express what is expressible. As a result, in the final analysis, he was able to polish a tile and make a Mirror. Even we people of the present time should try to pick up today’s ‘tile’ and give it a polish, for ultimately it will become a Mirror. If a tile could not become a Mirror, people could not become Buddha. If we belittle tiles as being lumps of clay, we will also belittle people as being lumps of clay. If people have a Heart, then tiles too will have a Heart. Who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a tile comes, the Tile appears? And who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a mirror comes, the Mirror appears?
    Shobogenzo, Kokyo, Hubert Nearman

    The "ancient mirror" is the Buddha mind; more specifically, it is an aspect or quality of the Buddha mind that is traditionally referred to as the "universal mirror prajna." The “universal mirror prajna” is the first of the “four prajna's (or “cognitions”) of Buddhahood.” This prajna is described as the aspect of mind that, like a mirror, perfectly reflects the world as it is in the immediate present – the world in its ‘thusness.’ Unlike an ordinary mirror, this prajna is not only reflective, it is also luminescent. It is the initial realization of this “prajna” (or “cognition”) that is traditionally regarded as the practitioners entrance into awakening (often called "kensho" in Zen).

    Dogen’s commentary on the koan illumines the same principle informing his teaching that “clear seeing is prajna itself” – here the principle is formulated as “when the polished tile became a mirror Baso became Buddha.”

    A “tile” is only a tile by virtue of being experienced as a mind-form unity (dharma) as it is. In the koan, “Baso” is only Baso (his true self; Buddha) by virtue of experiencing mind-forms as they are. When “the tile became a mirror Baso became Baso” – Baso became Baso (his true self; Buddha) when the tile became a mirror (its true self; a mind-form). Moreover, because the mirror (that which verifies) is never separate from the tile (that which is verified), the mirror (Baso) was actualized as a real mirror (the real Baso) by virtue of experiencing the tile.

    In terms of the prajna paramita literature, tile and mirror (forms) is emptiness, Baso is Buddha, emptiness is tile and mirror, Buddha is Baso; therefore, emptiness is emptiness, tile is tile, mirror is mirror, Buddha is Buddha, Baso is Baso. When Baso is Baso the whole universe is solely Baso; when zazen is zazen, the whole universe is solely sitting.

    In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.
    Zen Buddhism Dogen and the Shobogenzo: Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha
    Zen Buddhism Dogen and the Shobogenzo is a blog where all are welcome to share t... See More
    July 27 at 7:02pm · Edited · Like · 4 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo OOpss...
    July 27 at 7:03pm · Like
    Soh Practice-enlightenment, not no practice. Actualizing a tile in total exertion is practice enlightenment... so is sitting, walking, etc.
    July 27 at 7:07pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Yep. HOw could anything not be it?
    July 27 at 8:26pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Hey Kyle, do you read and speak Tibetan?
    July 27 at 8:26pm · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Soh and Kyle, you both said something that interestingly struck me while I am here watching Formula-1: There is no relative! Yes. Thanks.
    July 27 at 10:48pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle said: " and I however are not buddhas, we are sentient beings on the path and/or are aspirants aiming to recognize the basis..." This is imagination! This very thought is what is to "become". Implicitly you are seeking a "higher" Buddha, state as if something could be lacking right here and now. All is presently never-missing right here (there). It is all about the recognition of what already IS!!
    July 27 at 10:55pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo ....fleeting thoughts of limitation like passing clouds....
    July 27 at 11:03pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Within the most real Dream of the absolute a little dream of relativeness is born. But such little dream is in fact non-extant for it is just a thought of a little "me". So we are left with just the real absolute and its real Dream. These are just words - read between them.
    July 27 at 11:24pm · Like
    Priscilla Francis i never thought of Adyashanti as a neo-advaitin
    i love listening to his videos
    July 27 at 11:45pm · Like
    Garrett Baker **The true and real gift is the divinity of conscience. True objective Conscience is the Buddha nature which resides but is burried, covered up in man by false illusions of self.. The mirror of conscience is the reflection of objective reality. Polishing of tile make mirror.. He who enters mirror becomes Buddha. . .
    July 28 at 12:05am · Like
    Geovani Geo When thought arises in form of illusion: eat it. Fill up the base where true digestion happens
    July 28 at 12:20am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle said: "Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."===========> I am not sure I understand this. First it is not a matter of "you think", for if it is thought its just that: thinking. What partitions are you referring to? From HERE there are no partitions at all. But of course once we deal with a localized timebound world there is diversity. So I must step away from a truck about to hit me (a body/mind). Apart from that it is seen that inside those other bodies there may or may not arise thoughts of selfness. Is this what you mean?
    July 28 at 12:41am · Edited · Like
    Garrett Baker * Quark Matrix in Space-Time Manifold ?
    July 28 at 12:38am · Like
    Geovani Geo Sweeping the self related chest emotional debris into the base through realization of non-separateness ======> see-ing.
    July 28 at 12:43am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo From the ultimate POV there is no relative. From the relative POV the ultimate is conceptual.
    July 28 at 12:58am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Imagining what's beyond the pale turns the relative into a dreary place of confinement as opposed to one of wonder and surprise.
    July 28 at 1:09am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Yes. Imagining what is beyond boundaries is the vey creation of boundaries.
    July 28 at 2:29am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo The god news is that even when there seems to be frontiers.... the other side is always never not-here.
    July 28 at 2:51am · Like
    David Vardy Of course Duality in all its forms features an imaginary mote in between two halves. It's easily ignored when one half is imagined to be a background, free of persona.
    July 28 at 2:52am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo That would make three of them.
    July 28 at 2:58am · Like
    Geovani Geo Any kind of imaginative concept must create a conceiver.
    July 28 at 3:01am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy Actually imagining a background is a subtle form of personalization. It's just extending the boundaries.
    July 28 at 3:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo All and any kind of background must be imagination. In Being, only the foreground IS. Not even that.
    July 28 at 3:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Geovani, I did not say "is that clear..." you should re-read that post of you came away from it thinking it was a statement from me.
    July 28 at 3:32am · Like
    Kyle Dixon And your assertion that what I said "is imagination!" is the only imaginative view involved in that equation.

    What you are advocating for there is simultaneous nihilism and essentialism.
    July 28 at 3:34am · Like
    Geovani Geo Sorry... I thought it was you.
    July 28 at 3:34am · Like
    Geovani Geo Kyle... I asked up there... do you read and speak Tibetan?
    July 28 at 3:35am · Edited · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon I'm leaning to, not sure why that is relevant though... do you read and speak Icelandic?
    July 28 at 3:39am · Like
    Geovani Geo That is great! I had a very good Tibetan friend. We camped together for three month in southern morroco some decades ago - in the city of Mirleft. He was a refugee. We would sit over some rocks to chat... he used to tell incredible stories abou the young people in Tibet. He and his friends and many of the youngsters where all engaged in what he called "the search for truth". It seems that it is part of their culture.
    July 28 at 3:44am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo I really would like to read longchenpa in Tibetan!! PS - I dont speak Icelandic
    July 28 at 3:45am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo He told me one incredible story of a "hiden" monastery he and his friends where after... and how the story evolved. Sometime later i might create the courage to write it down...
    July 28 at 3:49am · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Hey David... Something in the back of my mind here. Apart from eventual disagreements, the perhaps never even existed, I am interested in the following. There is no self, no entity....puffff..gone.... being nothing one is everything. You can rephrase that in your own words if you dislike it...I using plain English. There is no center, no self, therefore one is everything. Now.... someone went further and said: there are no things or events either. There seems to be a jump there, I am not clear about that step. How do we go from being everything to there are no things and events, without using Sanskrit or Tibetan words or resorting to any kind of philosophical school nomenclature?
    July 28 at 6:23am · Like
    Kyle Dixon You'd have to approach these (Buddhist) systems on their own terms rather than from the standpoint of a Vedanta related view.
    July 28 at 6:36am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo I dont know which post are you answering with that, but in my case I am self-learned... have never followed any system whatsoever. But maybe you are referring to something/somebody else.... I dont know.
    July 28 at 6:42am · Like
    Kyle Dixon In Buddhism the 'self' or 'entity' is a conventional title ascribed to an aggregated process of intertwining causes and conditions. There's never been an actual self within or apart from those conditions, however delusion and afflictive tendencies reify and solidify the illusion of an entity into a seemingly solid and enduring individual.

    So it isn't the type of thing where you can say "there is no entity... pufff.... gone" because a statement of that nature has not resolved the actual underlying causes and conditions. "Everything" is likewise an afflictive misnomer.

    The "self" is patterns of grasping and identification... the self isn't 'just thought' and then 'the underlying clarity (cognizance) is perfect so one can just rest in that clarity and let thoughts pass by'... that is a wrong view and is really nothing more than thought objectifying thought.

    The fact that the self is patterns of grasping also means that grasping at the idea there is 'no self' is precisely the self that notion believes it is negating.

    So the issue is far more subtle than neo-Advaita logic makes it out to be. That [neo-nondual] species of logic simply says the knower or cognizance is absolute and already perfect and thoughts etc. are just spinning stories... that is not what Buddhism or Dzogchen etc., says, so if you approach systems of the Buddhadharma through that vein of reasoning then you'll never be able to properly understand the depth of what Buddhism is discussing or teaching. It is a common error nowadays, many carry this neo-nondual reasoning into Buddhism or Dzogchen etc., and think they already understand what is being discussed, however sadly those individuals are only deluding themselves and never come close to addressing the actual teachings of the buddhadharma.
    July 28 at 7:03am · Edited · Unlike · 8
    Geovani Geo I will use plain non-weirdo English for this. There is no I or you. You can identify yourself as the totality of ever-changing perceptions aspect and in this case your unchanging aspect will be conceptually posited or denied; or you can identify yourself AS (not you AND) the non-apparent unchanging aspect of yourself, and in this case the moving aspect is clearly seen as a play of ever-changing light-phenomena not other then itself.
    July 28 at 9:19pm · Like
    Geovani Geo The main point is establishing the right view. If that is realized, delusion and afflictive tendencies are seen only as a DRIVE to reify and solidify the illusion of an entity into a seemingly solid and enduring individual. From the correct POV its seen as only a tendency, because if such tendency in fact does solidify... then the view has been lost and now it is from deluded thought POV that all sort of deluded ideas about systems and graduality arise. Garab Dorje is absolutely clear in this respect in his "the three statements". When the view is momentarily lost it is not a matter of going back into embracing graduallity (which is like seeking an elephant in the forest when he is in your own garden) but snapping back into the right view NOW. If there is some difficulty in the snapping (many times it is the case) then one resorts to formal sessions of meditation where the right view is re-gained. But he reiterates that the formal sessions and the after sessions must be realized as the same.

    See how interesting this is. To see clearly that a set of conditions is what gives us the delusion of a solid real self is the right view only when it is indeed clearly seen and then the very seeing of those tendencies as just tendencies is the seeing of the falseness of the solid self. ITOH, if such fact is not clearly seen the notion that " 'self' or 'entity' is a conventional title ascribed to an aggregated process of intertwining causes and conditions" is an idea issuing from the very centered illusion that is in fact non-extant. So it all shows us that what matters is the establishment of the right view.
    July 28 at 11:05pm · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ah no, you're interpreting Garab Dorje through a neo-nondual view because it is possible to do so, however you are not understanding the actual view he is advocating for.

    You believe the view is staying with the 'unchanging aspect of yourself'. Garab Dorje would say that is just grasping at clarity (cognizance), and it is.
    July 28 at 11:18pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Would he? Lets go ask.
    July 28 at 11:19pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Get back.....get back...get back...get back to where you once belong - the beatles-
    July 28 at 11:35pm · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Of course. The view he championed was a freedom from extremes, not the extreme view you are talking about.

    The definitive view for him was uncontrived dharmata, not relative clarity treated as an ultimate and merged with everything... that's Vedanta.
    July 28 at 11:36pm · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo I am an born extremist I want it all.
    July 28 at 11:38pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Nothing wrong with clarity but as kyle said wrong view of clarity as changeless and inherent prevents seeing the true face of clarity and leads to grasping.

    From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen

    Question Ten:

    Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.

    "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"

    What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?

    Answer 10:

    You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.

    According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.

    But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.

    I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.

    Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?

    You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.

    Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.

    In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.
    The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo
    The Heart of Doµgen?s Shoµboµgenzoµ provides exhaustively annotated translations... See More
    July 29 at 12:43am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon Right, there's nothing wrong with clarity. For the vast majority of practitioners the clarity of mind is the starting point for practice, and this is even true for Dzogchen.

    However that is merely a provisional view and is not the "view" that Garab Dorje is referencing. Clarity alone (even non-dual with phenomena) is mind, not the nature of mind. To recognize the nature of mind, clarity must be recognized as empty, meaning; unreal and non-arisen (the opposite of a "changeless aspect of oneself").
    July 29 at 1:02am · Unlike · 5
    Geovani Geo What is changeless is not the view. View of changelessness is conceptual, just as imagining that you are seeing your seeing eyes.
    July 29 at 1:22am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Yeah that is grasping at the 'knower' or 'knowing' clarity.
    July 29 at 1:24am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon What you're referencing is the "eyes cannot see themselves", "teeth cannot bite themselves", " flame cannot burn itself", metaphor. Which is common with advaita type views.
    July 29 at 1:32am · Like
    David Vardy The crystal vase has a false bottom. It's always being emptied.
    July 29 at 1:38am · Like · 3
    Geovani Geo Adding an object to a space subtracts space from space? Subtracting an abject form space adds space to space? Moving an object adds space to one place and subtract space from another? No. Space is unchanging space. There are golden rings, golden cups, golden vases. Does gold change from being gold for being a cup, a ring or a vase? You are the space, you are the gold.
    July 29 at 2:42am · Like
    Geovani Geo And the emptying of the vase fills the visceral base.... and a king is crowned.
    July 29 at 2:44am · Like
    David Vardy I only have one kidney, a very big one, but just one. The only problem with it is it doesn't get rest since there isn't another to sometimes take the load. The first time it came to a 'seeming' stop I was in the midst of a virtual death-grip. Everything seemed to come to a halt. It was like my whole life had been experienced in the seat of an idling car. Imagine having nothing to compare 'idling' with, the sudden silence which would occur from the engine stopping would be shocking, and was in this case. Ironically, I realized that vibration isn't experienced because I'm the absence of vibration but simply one vibration is experienced compared to an experience of another greater or lesser vibration. Each vibration is dependent on another, so in essence empty, and empty of its absence too.
    July 29 at 3:24am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon "You are the space, you are the gold." is a legitimate insight in the context of Vedanta and systems of that nature. It takes the limited "you" and ends up with a transcendent universal "you". Hence "you are the space" etc. That is a profound view but it is one which can be further refined. It is not considered to be definitive in the eyes of Buddhism, Atiyoga etc., that is the only point I'm making.
    July 29 at 3:52am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo You feel as you where the totality of ever-changing perceptions -the vases, the rings, the cups. But perceptions are being "perceived". What IS is totally present and open, zero-dimensional pure presence where changing perceptions occur.
    July 29 at 4:02am · Like
    David Vardy In the absence of a conceptual background the question doesn't occur.
    July 29 at 4:13am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Interesting that you believe your statements or questions aren't being understood Geovani. I saw you mentioned that in another group... regarding your inquiry into making the jump from where you feel you're at to other insights you may have heard about. Honestly it isn't that your questions or statements are being misunderstood but that the initial presuppositions they are predicated upon are divergent in principle and are upholding certain principles that may very well be preventing a refinement of insight.

    And then when people here offer opinions or insights which could help address the species of view you are currently identifying with you seem to believe they aren't grasping or understanding where you're at. So you interpret insight which may aid in refining your view, as insight which is irrelevant or inferior to the view you currently champion. Hence why you assert that people aren't understanding your questions or what you are saying.
    July 29 at 5:01am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Nah, that's mostly bs, methinks. I see some 'proper' direction to what Geovani is saying. A big part of this discussion seems to be caused by the hard linguistic line drawn by some on this group versus a more fluid approach to communicating these things. It's difficult to pick out examples, because it's littered everywhere, swimmingly, drowningly.

    Persistently, consistently, vehemently judging a sequence of words more correct or more incorrect than another necessitates a certain ignorance. I see Geovani jumping around, quite flexible, and that demonstrates something sane to me.

    Also, what the hell is up with the flagrant shoehorning, boxing, labeling? It's such an ugly show... First he's this, then he's that, then there's another box with a label, etc. What about listening to the intention, instead of trying to catch it in a net of philosophical besserwisserness? I feel there's a certain violence to that.
    July 29 at 5:30am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Did you know: Thousands of people attained the unexcelled goal in the tradition of Gotama without ever hearing or uttering the phrase "non-arisen"? Seriously, think about that.
    July 29 at 5:33am · Like · 1
    Ej Alex No presence "where" changing perceptions occur. There is no presence aside of the changing perceptions. I think the clarity is blinding you, Geovani. It is never the same clarity. Always something new. Look into Bahiya Sutta to understand the nature of this clarity, it doesn´t work without understanding impermanence. Then you will undsterstand that there is no essence outside of change. The non-arising of the relative. No absolute outside of that. Just illusory clarity, that isn´t cognized by a space and doesn´t arise to a space. The change is the space, but it isn´t permanent and not made.
    July 29 at 5:37am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Stian, not sure what to tell you... right view [samyag d???i] isn't the first principle of the Noble Eightfold Path for no reason.
    July 29 at 5:40am · Like
    Kyle Dixon The enumerated concept "non-arisen" is irrelevant to realization... but all who attained the unexcelled goal by the buddhadharma's standards without a doubt realized the unenumerated actuality that the term "non-arising" represents.
    July 29 at 5:45am · Like · 1
    David Vardy 'Holding your ground' makes for an easy target which is not to say there can't be anything learned from that.
    July 29 at 5:48am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland There's no "the" right view, right? Right view is for the overcoming of attachment to any view.
    July 29 at 5:49am · Like
    Kyle Dixon There is the right conventional view for the method of the buddhadharma, elucidated by the provisional prajñas of hearing and reflection. Those conventional wisdoms (in their accurate forms, coupled with upaya) lead to the definitive wisdom which pacifies all views - which is the unenumerated prajña of meditation.

    The mind cannot overcome attachment to views without definitive wisdom insight. When the mind tries to overcome attachment to views it simply becomes involved with acceptance and rejection... even if it tries to keep a moderate view that doesn't consider any view to be "right", that still involves attachment and aversion by default.

    So for this reason, and as Nagarjuna said, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on a correct conventional view. The correct conventional and provisional view will help actualize the definitive view which is the dharmata free from extremes.

    All we have to work with in an Internet forum is (of course) the conventional and enumerated views, since the unenumerated ultimate is obviously inexplicable and beyond conceptual descriptions, just like all direct experiences are.
    July 29 at 6:10am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland What is "the right conventional view", "the correct conventional and provisional view" & "the conventional and enumerated views"?
    July 29 at 6:16am · Edited · Like
    Ej Alex It is possible to understand concepts like no-self and emptiness intellectually before realization.
    July 29 at 6:25am · Like
    David Vardy "The mind cannot overcome attachment to views without definitive wisdom insight.".....Wisdom insight arises in seeing that the mind is formatted to reject or accept.
    July 29 at 6:30am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Stian, different ways to say the same thing: an enumerated view = conventional view = relative view = provisional view = inferential view = conceptual view = intellectual view, etc.
    July 29 at 6:34am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Mind is a pseudo reference point to begin with, so it can only relate to the so-called referents which arise concomitantly with it.

    Naturally a reference point relating to referents can either accept, reject, or remain indifferent to those referents (I.e. it is formatted to reject or accept like David said). In any case it is still a point of reference which perceives existent referents, even if it remains indifferent... for that is simply abstaining from involvement with referents that could be potentially interacted with.

    Wisdom insight arises when the reference point [mind] collapses because its nature (as empty) is recognized. That recognition implies a cessation of cause for arising, meaning; a cessation of ignorance [avidya].
    July 29 at 6:50am · Like · 3
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I mean, what is it, Kyle? What is it that is referenced by those phrases?
    July 29 at 7:17am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Depends on the vehicle and/or system concerned, but any written (or spoken) exposition from a Buddha, Bodhisattva or Vidyadhara is naturally going to be an example of right view.
    July 29 at 7:26am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy Just an aside. When you eat a banana, you either like it or you don't, it's delicious, isn't delicious or you're indifferent to the taste. The format is what it is. However, we're featured drawing conclusions like "Gosh, I love bananas", after tasting a banana. The mind is informing there's someone who likes or dislikes bananas. The 'accept or reject' mechanism doesn't collapse so much as it stays within the frame of an experience after seeing its limitations. 'I liked that banana' is the cessation of 'you' and that
    July 29 at 7:29am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle, I think that's a nice heuristic, but also a little unsatisfying in this context.
    July 29 at 7:51am · Like
    Geovani Geo "In the absence of a conceptual background the question doesn't occur." I keep questioning this very same possibility. But the main question remains: are you RESTRICTED to the totality of perceptions? The answer to this has profound connotations. If this is true, the eventual absence/dissolution of perceptions is equal to the end of the universe for good. Now... pleeese... don't say that I am looking for an afterlife - that is not the case. I am joyfully and with the most profound interest investigating facts... not feeding illusion. Is "what is" restricted to a Cartesian segment comprehended between some stuff called birth and another called death? I am just bringing up the type of connotations involved in the questioning line. I dont accept the interpretations that some have about what Buddha said. I remember some texts where this investigation is clearly pursued but as I am not a Buddhist student I dont remember where they are. With time I will look it up. I remember one in particular where Buddha is gathered in a big hall or saloon and he draws analogies with the light that comes in through the doors and windows... and sounds tha can be heard.... something like that. Maybe Soh or someone else can locate it. And several other texts...
    July 29 at 7:58am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hey David. I really liked that comment about vibration—I think there can arise deep insight from really contemplating the points you made. Your comment about liking and disliking also seems relevant and related to that.

    It also seems to me that we have somewhat diverging views on the deepest significance of the points you made in those comments.

    As I see it, in terms of physics, enlightenment can be likened to access to the inertial frame, an all-encompassing context 'intranscending' the realm of relativity. So it is not merely the freeing up of clinging to disjoint, causal phenomena. But nevertheless, the true nature of enlightenment is betrayed by these words—they make it seem like it is something it is not.
    July 29 at 8:01am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Geovani, that presupposes a multitude of notions, such as cartesian duality, a universe which began and can end, birth, death, something which may or may not be restricted to a totality of perceptions and so on.
    July 29 at 8:04am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland There is this footnote (which I posted on this group quite a while ago) by Nyanananda which I find extremely satisfying and aligns deeply with my experience:
    July 29 at 8:04am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Stian, every time you mean to write 'causal' you write 'casual'... just FYI.
    July 29 at 8:07am · Like
    Geovani Geo An universe that can begin or end? Is there an universe apart from present perceptions? If you say there is then such conceived universe is still a perception as a concept in mind. And if the universe (or what is) is what is perceived then with the end of perceptions the universe must end.
    July 29 at 8:10am · Like
    Geovani Geo In a first fast glance from the text that Stian presented above:===================> "The import of this significant declaration can be understood in the context of those suttas in which the Buddha defines the concept of the world. The 'world,' for the Buddha, arises in the six sense-spheres (See above Note 21)."
    July 29 at 8:14am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Thanks for catching that, Kyle. Think I might have screwed up the auto-correct priority of those words, so it ends up being 'casual' every time!
    July 29 at 8:19am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Every time I read that footnote, something new rivets my attention. This time it was this, and my gosh, isn't it right on the money...

    "In his infinite and all-lustrous consciousness where view-points have been displaced by an all encompassing vision of truth, the 'signal-transmission' as to the impermanence of the senses and their objects, occurs at such an infinite velocity that it prevents the most elementary coagulation or compounding which accounts for the six spheres of sense."
    July 29 at 8:21am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Ah.... regarding cross-posting. I do cross-post regularly (only my own posts) and I usually tell it so that readers know about. If cross-posting is not welcomed here it wont be any problem.... and I wont do it anymore.
    July 29 at 8:46am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ultimately, neither perception nor the universe began in the first place. One is not contained within the other nor is one apart from the other. Neither are ultimately findable.
    July 29 at 8:53am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon The six sense spheres and eight consciousnesses and so on are dependently originated conventionalities. As is the world.
    July 29 at 8:54am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon You're welcome to cross post all day, I'd say it's the furthest thing from anything anyone cares about around here.
    July 29 at 8:57am · Like
    Geovani Geo Good.. just as I imagined. Ahh... eventually I also cross-gossip a bit - but only when the person clearly deserves it, of course. Anyway if someone here becomes eligible... I will let him/her know well in advance.
    July 29 at 9:27am · Like
    Soh "I remember one in particular where Buddha is gathered in a big hall or saloon and he draws analogies with the light that comes in through the doors and windows... and sounds tha can be heard.... something like that."

    This is likely from Shurangama Sutra, which is a Mahayana text. Shurangama Sutra: "Ananda, this great lecture hall is open to the east. It is flooded with light when the sun rises in the sky. It is dark at midnight during a new moon or when obscured by clouds or fog. Looking out through open doors and windows your vision is unimpeded; facing walls or houses your vision is hindered. Your vision is causally conditioned in such places where there are forms of distinctive features; in dull void, you can see only emptiness. Your vision will be distorted when the objects of seeing are shrouded in dust and vapor; you will perceive clearly when the air is fresh..." etc

    Loppon Malcolm: "This sutra, whether authentic or not, simply is not read in the Tibetan Canon and so therefore, will not be felt of much authority by Tibetan Buddhists. It is certain that it existed, but unlike many other sutras, for whatever reason, the Tibetans chose not to translate it into Tibetan because perhaps they doubted its authenticity."

    Nevertheless, it is quite a popular text in Chinese Buddhism. It is a nice text. "After explaining the controversy of the "authenticity" of the Surangama Sutra, Dogen goes on to say that - regardless of the authenticity of the Sutra, since Buddha ancestors had since taken it up (as evidenced in their records), it is an authentic expression of Buddha (at least in regard to the particular verses cited by ancestors) - Dogen is very clear that, "...even if this verse were from a text considered to be spurious... it is the verse of a Buddha..."

    In the earlier parts of the sutra, Shurangama Sutra points to the I AM realization. Which is absolutely fine as far as things go... as written before in : "When I talk to someone, I have specific purposes. If I want someone to have direct experience of 'I AMness', I will want him to have vivid experience of the 'I AM' Presence, and that includes the wrong understanding of inherent existence. Just like when your teacher is teaching you algebra, he or she cannot tell you about calculus. Similarly when you learn classical physics, the teacher cannot keep telling you about relativity. There is no point to keep telling you about quantum mechanics when you are studying newtonic views, for how are you going to understand quantum mechanics? You start from the newton way of understanding gravity, then slowly followed by relativity. Similarly when you study numbers, you start with discrete numbers - there is no point teaching you decimals or the rate of change, or see things as change. You see things in discrete first. If you keep telling people about wrong stuff under differing conditions, you only confuse people. I never wanted people to understand the ultimate truth, other people will lead them to the right understanding when it is appropriate. So I might talk about Advaita [e.g. I AM/One Mind realization] until the day I die, or about stage 4 to 5 insight and nothing about 6 or emptiness. The approach I employ is strictly dependently originated, it is about seeing the conditions of an individual practitioner, but whether that person understands dependent origination is another matter."

    Later, nondual, anatta, emptiness, are expressed in the sutra. Warnings were given against the non-Buddhist sort of eternalist views.


    Shurangama Sutra:

    "Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral characteristics, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. They are what is called ‘illusory falseness.’ But their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. 3:1

    ”Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. 3:2

    ”Who would have thought that production, extinction, coming, and going are fundamentally the everlasting, wonderful light of the Treasury of the Thus Come One, the unmoving, all pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of true suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, there is nothing that can be obtained. 3:3"


    Commenting on the above, Zen/Ch'an Master Hui Lu wrote:



    Second chapter: Every single dharma is fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One [tathagatagarbha/Buddha-nature], what are the dharmas? Five aggregates, six entries, twelve sense bases, eighteen elements, are all fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One. How do we explain this?


    What sentient beings call Form/Matter, Feelings, Perceptions, Volition, and Consciousness; when the eighth consciousness transforms into the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, the labels/conventional images of these five aggregates completely disappears. Although the names are transformed, its body is not transformed. This false name is being transformed into what is being called the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, [hence] Form IS Buddha-nature, feeling IS buddha-nature, perception IS buddha-nature, volition IS buddha-nature, consciousness IS buddha-nature.
    Awakening to Reality: Flawed Mode of Enquiry
    July 29 at 9:56am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo Yes... world/body/mind/time/space are all co-originated.
    July 29 at 9:33am · Like
    Soh ....


    Within our China's Mahayana Buddhism, there are many, in fact the majority of those latter-day commentators, due to not having attained Great Realization, have distorted the Buddha's meaning.


    For example: Shakyamuni Buddha has never said anything like "while following conditions one is unchanged, one is unchanged while following conditions". That [saying] actually came from our Mahayana venerables, they keep on spouting such saying, such a saying is actually [based on] beginningless ignorance, it is a false understanding, the Buddha has never said such a saying; the Buddha has never said: from true emptiness comes marvellous existence, marvellous existence true emptiness, [I have] searched throughout the entire Tripitaka [the three textual collections of sutras, vinaya and abhidharma] and Shakyamuni Buddha has never ever said such a thing.


    The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness the illusory is produced; not attaching to either side is known as the middle way.


    Shakyamuni Buddha has never said such a saying, never!


    I have flipped through the Tripitaka's twelve sections of sutras, it has never ever said anything with regards to "being unchanged while following conditions, following conditions while being unchanged"; it has never said: "true emptiness produces miraculous existence, from miraculous existence comes true emptiness"; and it has never said: "from the illusory one enters into empitness, from emptiness comes the illusory, not attaching to either side is known as the middle way". Having an exit and entry, how could that be Buddha-nature?


    Therefore, the first saying should be changed into: Appearing according to conditions.


    Those who say: being unchanged by the flow of conditions, the flow of conditions does not change/affect us - we usually have the view of a self-nature, conceiving that the Treasury of the Thus Come One is always unchanging in suchness, unchanging in suchness, like a pool of dead water. Wrong!


    It can give rise to marvellous function, therefore, it manifests according to conditions. When the Buddha preaches the dharma he is also in Samadhi, in movement, standing, sitting and sleeping, the ingenuity in varying usage depends on natural intelligence, how could there be an unchanging thing?


    This "being immutable in the midst of conditions" will cause people to fall into (the conclusion of): there is a kind of "something" that is unchanging, and one constantly seeks after a kind of "something that is not changing", mistaken that there is a kind of "something" that is called "eternal".


    [In actuality] what is known as eternal is eternally non-abiding, filled with wisdom-mind - that is called eternal, it is not that there is a kind of "thing" that is called eternal.


    We have to understand, conditioned dharma IS precisely unconditioned dharma, conditioned dharma is the dependently arisen, arising and ceasing, impermanent dharmas; it is completely empty and hence unconditioned dharma, its immediate essence is empty, we do not speak of any dualities.


    Therefore we say: manifesting according to conditions, is what completely and greatly realized people would say, for if you talk about "being immutable in the face of conditions", what is the thing that never changes?


    Those greatly realized mind knows that Buddha-Nature is like the Wish-Fulfilling Gem, when the Hu man arrives Hu man is made manifest, when the Han man arrives Han man is made manifest, it will always change, if it were unchanging it would be like a pool of dead water, how could it manifest functions?


    Isn't that the case? If the Treasury of the Thus Come One never changes, then how would Shakyamuni Buddha expound the sutras and preach the dharma?
    July 29 at 9:35am · Like · 1
    Soh ???,????,???????????????,???????

    [If] it is unchanging, [it would be like] a pool of dead water, when Shakyamuni Buddha expounds the sutras that would be the coming forth of marvellous activities, how could it have been that it never changes?


    Isn't that the case? Therefore: Buddha nature is Impermanence. What is known as Buddha-nature is Impermanence, is spoken from the point of view of marvellous activities; when Buddha-nature is spoken as permanent, it is spoken from the perspective of [fundamental] body, when speaking to those who have not realized, this is the only way we can explain.


    When speaking of Impermanence, that is due to the Buddha's bemoaning the state of the universe and pitying the fate of mankind, thus letting us realize that the ten thousand dharmas are arising and ceasing in impermanency, empty without self-nature, therefore, Shakyamuni Buddha cannot avoid speaking about Impermanence to let you realize it earlier.


    When explaining Permanence, it is for the purpose of providing something to rely on for the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles, wherefore we speak of our Treasury of the Thus Come One as Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity, however the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles then grasp after a kind of something that is 'Permanent, Blissful, Self and Purity', and thus again becoming attached to an eternal something.

    (my personal comments: certainly this issue does not apply to the 'arahants' of Buddhism who have realized anatta or no-soul, maybe the comment is more appropriate for adherents of the non-Buddhist tradition, the term 'two vehicles' originally meant for the arahants and pratyekabuddhas have in latter days of Chinese Mahayana become a very loose term used to imply all and any kind of 'misguided practitioners')


    When the Shakyamuni Buddha talks about impermanence, it is meant for severing your craving; when speaking about permanence, it is meant for providing a means of support for the practitioners of the two vehicles, yet the practitioners of the two vehicles then attached to a kind of something that is called 'permanent'.


    Shakyamuni Buddha tells us: when talking about Permanent, Bliss, Self and Purity, that is just a kind of skillful means, [for] when it arises transformation, then it is impermanence.


    Could expounding sutras and preaching the dharma have been permanence?


    It will change/be impermanent, impermanence in its essence is empty, just that is permanence.


    Therefore, nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there be permanence or impermanence?


    Nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there have been abidance or non-abidance?


    When reaching the state of the Buddha, if we impute a view then it is completely wrong. Imposing any kind of view is not allowed, not one dharma is established, only then is this the true Dharma.


    Buddha has never talked about true emptiness producing marvellous existence, or marvellous existence [comes] true emptiness, this is a commentary from China's patriarchs.


    The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory enters emptiness, from emptiness comes the illusory, the Buddha has said: Not-two dharma door [the Dharma of Non-Duality], you have to be clear about this!


    What is known as the dharma door of non-duality means Mind and Situation are not two, isn't it so?


    Dependent arising is equivalent to empty nature, it is not that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature.


    Or that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature, dependent arising is going in accord with conditions, and apart from that there is an empty nature that is known to be permanent.


    Isn't it the case? Then that would be splitting it into two, then this is no longer the dharma door of non-duality. Dependent arising is fundamentally empty, just that is the empty nature; birth and death are fundamentally empty, just that is Nirvana, birth and death and nirvana is without distance, Bodhi [enlightenment] is originally not one thing.
    July 29 at 9:36am · Like · 1
    Soh Also,

    In these sutras, the Buddha warned against mistaken understandings of the I AM and non-dual experience/realisation prior to the Anatta insight (i.e. Thusness Stage 1~4). Shurangama Sutra in particular maps well with Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

    First Sutra (Shurangama Sutra)

    (41) Ananda, you should know that the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty, and he must return consciousness to the source. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

    He can cause the individual sense faculties of his body to unite and open. He also has a pervasive awareness of all the categories of beings in the ten directions. Since his awareness is pervasive, he can enter the perfect source. But if he regards what he is returning to as the cause of true permanence and interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of holding to that cause. Kapila the Sankhyan, with his theory of returning to the Truth of the Unmanifest, will become his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the first state, in which he creates a place to which to return, based on the idea that there is something to attain. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of externalism.

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

    He may regard that to which he is returning as his own body and see all living beings in the twelve categories throughout space as flowing forth from his body. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of maintaining that he has an ability which he does not really have. Maheshvara, who manifests his boundless body, will become his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the second state, in which he creates a specific ability based on the idea that he has such an ability. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds for being born in the Heaven of Great Pride where the self is considered all-pervading and perfect.

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

    If he regards what he is returning to as a refuge, he will suspect that his body and mind come forth from there, and that all things in the ten directions of space arise from there as well. He will explain that that place from which all things issue forth is the truly permanent body, which is not subject to production and destruction. While still within production and destruction, he prematurely reckons that he abides in permanence. Since he is deluded about non-production, he is also confused about production and destruction. He is sunk in confusion. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of taking what is not permanent to be permanent. He will speculate that the God of Sovereignty (Ishvaradeva) is his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the third state, in which he makes a false speculation based on the idea that there is a refuge. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of an distorted view of perfection.

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

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

    This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness.
    Awakening to Reality: Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness
    July 29 at 9:37am · Like · Remove Preview
    Soh (45) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

    If he has attained versatility in the perfect fusion and interchangeable functioning of the sense faculties, he may speculate that all things arise from these perfect transformations. He then seeks the light of fire, delights in the purity of water, loves the wind's circuitous flow, and contemplates the accomplishments of the earth. He reveres and serves them all. He takes these mundane elements to be a fundamental cause and considers them to be everlasting. He will then fall into the error of taking what is not production to be production. Kashyapa and the Brahmans who seek to transcend birth and death by diligently serving fire and worshipping water will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the fifth state, in which he confusedly pursues the elements, creating a false cause that leads to false aspirations based on speculations about his attachment to worship. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of transformation.

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

    He may speculate that there is an emptiness within the perfect brightness, and based on that he denies the myriad transformations, taking their eternal cessation as his refuge. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of taking what is not a refuge to be a refuge. Those abiding in Shunyata in the Heaven of [Neither Thought nor] Non-Thought will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the sixth state, in which he realizes a state of voidness based on the idea of emptiness within the perfect brightness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of annihilationism.

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

    In the state of perfect permanence, he may bolster his body, hoping to live for a long time in that subtle and perfect condition without dying. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of being greedy for something unattainable. Asita and those who seek long life will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

    This is the seventh state, in which he creates the false cause of bolstering and aspires to permanent worldly existence, based on his attachment to the life-source. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds for false thoughts of lengthening life.
    July 29 at 9:38am · Like · 1
    Soh <-- you see some of these views promulgated in various forms of Hinduism and Taoism.
    July 29 at 9:38am · Like
    Soh Buddha warned (in Shurangama Sutra) against taking Consciousness as a permanent Spiritual Self:

    (33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

    First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."


    Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence.


    Finally, if your pure, bright, clear, and unmoving state is permanent, then there should be no seeing, hearing, awareness or knowing in your body. If it is genuinely pure and true, it should not contain habits and falseness.

    How does it happen, then, that having seen some unusual thing in the past, you eventually forget it over time, until neither memory nor forgetfulness of it remain; but then later, upon suddenly seeing that unusual thing again, you remember it clearly from before without one detail omitted? How can you reckon the permeation which goes on in thought after thought in this pure, clear, and unmoving consciousness?

    Ananda, you should know that this state of clarity is not real. It is like rapidly flowing water that appears to be still on the surface. Because of its rapid speed, you cannot perceive the flow, but that does not mean it is not flowing. If this were not the source of thinking, then how could one be subject to false habits?

    If you do not open and unite your six sense faculties so that they function interchangeably, this false thinking will never cease.

    That's why your seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are presently strung together by subtle habits, such that within the profound clarity, existence and non-existence are both illusory. This is the fifth kind of upside-down, minutely subtle thinking.
    July 29 at 9:39am · Like · 2
    Soh Also, there is another sutta where the Buddha warned against the same thing, but this is getting long so I will only post a short excerpt:

    Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

    One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

    This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

    (you can see the whole sutta and commentary in the link above).

    Also, many sutras like Lankavatara Sutra warned against holding a wrong, eternalist/Atman view of Buddha-nature.

    In this Lankavatara Sutra, it explains that the doctrine of Tathagatagarbha is simply a skillful, expedient means taught to non-Buddhists who fear the notion of emptiness and cling to notions of true self. Its aim is actually to lead them gradually towards understanding emptiness, non-arising etc expediently. It teaches that true Bodhisattvas must treat tathagatagarbha as ultimately not-self, and warn against falling into non-Buddhist views of an Atman.

    Lankavatara Sutra:

    "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

    When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

    Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

    The Bhagavan replied:

    “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

    Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

    Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

    Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

    Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

    Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

    Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
    July 29 at 9:44am · Like
    Soh There are many more I could quote... but maybe next time.

    Ch'an Patriarch Hui-Neng and Zen Master Dogen puts it directly like this: Impermanence is Buddha-Nature.
    July 29 at 9:44am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Of course there are not two emptiness! There is no thing that is not already empty. And I agree that in many cases when neo-advatas talk of Awareness there is the danger of dualization: projecting a conceptual Awareness separate from phenomena or things. This is the inherent danger in a ALL positive approaches. IOH the explicitly negative approach also has its inherent danger when existence is restricted to its apparent aspect (see Tao Te King: "that which can not be seen is called invisible...etc..together make up one..etc..."). Regarding false Buddhism versus genuine one.... well....what can I say. Legitimate is the one that carries the stamp of the Office of Legitimate Buddhism Authorities - of course.
    July 29 at 9:58am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo "

    Look at it, it cannot be seen
    It is called colorless
    Listen to it, it cannot be heard
    It is called noiseless
    Reach for it, it cannot be held
    It is called formless
    These three cannot be completely unraveled
    So they are combined into one

    Above it, not bright
    Below it, not dark
    Continuing endlessly, cannot be named
    It returns back into nothingness
    Thus it is called the form of the formless
    The image of the imageless
    This is called enigmatic
    Confront it, its front cannot be seen
    Follow it, its back cannot be seen

    Wield the Tao of the ancients
    To manage the existence of today
    One can know the ancient beginning
    It is called the Tao Axiom
    July 29 at 10:02am · Like
    Geovani Geo NOTE: " Office of Legitimate Buddhism Authorities" is the official agency that attests Buddhist texts as authentic when they concur with my personal POV, and false the ones that dont. //;>))
    July 29 at 10:12am · Edited · Like
    Soh Son of Buddha wrote:The sutra even quotes old anatman(not self) teachings and explains them in the context of True Self.

    Loppon Malcolm:
    Yes, indeed, which is why is treated as a provisional text.

    The Aryak?ayamatinirdesa-nama-mahayana-sutra sets out the criteria for a sutra of definitive meaning:

    Any sutranta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sutranta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sutrantas of of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sutrantas of the provisional meaning.

    This is why the tathagatagarbha doctrine can be either provisional or definitive depending on one's understanding and method of explication."


    "Neyartha simple means "interpretable". Nitartha means "requires no interpretation". There are different uses of these terms in different context. For example, the Avatamska-sutra refers to itself as the "definitive sutra for practice". The Ak?ayamatinirde?a-sutra establishes that any sutra which talks about pretty much anything other than emptiness is provisional."
    July 29 at 10:52am · Edited · Like
    Soh Although Tao Te Ching is not a Buddhist text, I'm pretty sure the Tao in Taoism is not understood in the same context as the sort of Brahman as described in Hinduism. (But neither is it completely same view as Buddhism) Perhaps John Tan knows this as he used to learn under Taoist teachers. In Tao Te Ching, the Tao is described as "flow", being like water.
    July 29 at 10:56am · Like · 2
    Soh It took me a number of years of self inquiry, self-realization, one mind, then to anatta and emptiness to realize the very basic and essential message of Buddha.

    Session Start: Tuesday, 10 July, 2007

    (11:35 AM) Thusness: lzls last time used to say something like we should 'yi jue' (rely on awareness) and not 'yi xin' (rely on thoughts) bcos jue (awareness) is everlasting, thoughts are impermanent... something like that
    (11:35 AM) Thusness: this is not right.
    (11:35 AM) Thusness: this is advaita teaching.
    (11:35 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:36 AM) Thusness: now what is most difficult to understand in buddhism is this.
    (11:36 AM) Thusness: to experience the unchanging is not difficult.
    (11:36 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: but to experience impermanence yet know the unborn nature is prajna wisdom.
    (11:38 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: it would be a misconception to think that Buddha do not know the state of unchanging.
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: or when Buddha tok about unchanging it is referring to an unchanging background.
    (11:39 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:39 AM) Thusness: otherwise why would i have stressed so much about the misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
    (11:39 AM) Thusness: And of course, it is a misunderstanding that I have not experienced the unchanging.
    (11:39 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: what u must know is to develop the insight into impermanence and yet realised the unborn.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: this then is prajna wisdom.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: to 'see' permanence and say it is unborn is momentum.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: when buddha say permanence it is not referring to that.
    (11:42 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:43 AM) Thusness: to go beyond the momentum u must be able to be naked for a prolong period of time.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: then experience impermanence itself, not labelling anything.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: the seals is even more important than the buddha in person.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: even buddha when misunderstood it becomes sentient.
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: longchen wrote an interesting passage
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: on closinggap
    (11:47 AM) AEN: which one
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: reincarnation.
    (11:47 AM) AEN: oh ya i read it
    (11:48 AM) Thusness: the one he clarify kyo's reply?
    (11:50 AM) AEN: ya
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: that reply is a very important reply
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: and it also proves that longchen has realised the importance of transients
    (11:50 AM) AEN: oic..
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: and the five aggregates as buddha nature
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: time for unborn nature
    (11:51 AM) AEN: icic
    (11:51 AM) Thusness: u c, it takes one to go through such phases, from "I AM" to Non-dual to isness then to the very very basic of what buddha taught...
    (11:51 AM) Thusness: can u see that?
    (11:52 AM) AEN: yea
    (11:52 AM) Thusness: the more one experience, the more truth one sees in what buddha taught in the most basic teaching.
    (11:53 AM) Thusness: whatever longchen experience is not because he read what buddha taught, but because he really experience it.
    (11:54 AM) AEN: icic..
    July 29 at 11:08am · Edited · Like · 3
    Geovani Geo Soh... a dreamed entity dreams he is striving to wake up. He dreams he strived for 40 years. Suddenly he wakes up to the realization that it was all a dream, including the time it took of practice, into no-entity-ness. The guy who strived so hard simply does not exist, never existed, outside of the dream.
    July 29 at 11:17am · Like
    Kyle Dixon The individual never did exist inherently... you aren't working with an inherent self, you're working with causes and conditions. Geovani can go to the market to buy groceries, Geovani can also be liberated... doesn't matter whether there is an entity or not.
    July 29 at 11:33am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Who/what is working with causes and conditions? Describe to me the nature of such worker.
    July 29 at 4:40pm · Like
    ????????? ?????? "Who/what is working with causes and conditions?" : A conventional self.
    "Describe to me the nature of such worker." : Empty of Inherent existence.
    July 29 at 8:07pm · Like · 2
    Geovani Geo Yes. You see what funny birds we are? All there is to our entity-ness are tendencies and propensities to believe in some solid self. And we think we are doing a great job ,some big work, towards realization. Who? The very tendencies and propensities to believe in some solid self are doing the great job??!! Can conditioning unravel conditioning? No way!! We are doing nothing because there is none there to be doing it. So now what?
    July 29 at 8:21pm · Edited · Like
    Soh I wrote this in :

    Din: "as soon as you take any action or any need for training, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space, not that there's any wrong with that!"

    My reply:

    This is not true. This is as ridiculous as saying "as long as you take any action to keep fit, such as going to gym, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"


    "as long as you take any action to pass your exams, such as studying hard, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"


    "as long as you take any action to survive, such as eating and sleeping, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"


    "as long as you take any action to cure your disease, such as seeing the doctor, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"

    No-self/Anatta is not about denying thinking, action, carrying water and chopping wood... and this is the key difference between genuine anatta insight from dualistic conceptual understanding. The very notion that "action" and "intention" implies, or necessitates, an "actor", and therefore for non-action the intentions and actions must also cease, is precisely using dualistic thinking to understanding anatta...

    Action never required a self (in fact there never was a self or a doer apart from action to begin with: only a delusion of one), and action does not need to perpetuate the myth of a self. The myth of a self is not exactly dependent on action or lack thereof. Sure, action that arises out of the dualistic sense of actor/act where there is an "I" trying to modify or achieve "that" is a form of action produced by ignorance. But not all actions necessarily arise out of an underlying sense of duality. If all actions arise out of a sense of duality, then after awakening one will just wither and die as he cannot even feed himself.

    When one is operating with a dualistic way of understanding, one thinks that action implies a self that is doing an act, and one thinks that non-action implies that the self ends with the action. But genuine insight into non-action is simply the realization that never was there a real actor behind action, so there is always in acting just that action - whole being is only the total exertion of action, and this is always already the case but not realized. That is true non-action - there is no subject (actor) performing an act (object).

    Futhermore: The myth of a self is not dependent on practice and lack thereof. (Oh but, 'right practice' and 'contemplation' does a lot to deconstruct that myth!) The myth of a self is however dependent on ignorance, and only wisdom ends that ignorance, just like turning on the lights lead to the natural cessation of irrational fear and thinking of monster in the dark room by a child.

    There is always only action without a doer. No doer does not deny action, it denies agency, and realization of such leads to the direct, immediate, experience of total exertion/total action where doer/deed is refined till none in one whole movement. There is nothing passive about non-action. Non-action is simply action without self/Self. All actions performed without sense of self/Self is in fact non-action. Without the subjective pole (actor), the objective pole in contrast to the subject (being acted upon) is also automatically negated. Yet clearly, the total exertion - pure action... goes on.

    Dogen calls this practice-enlightenment. You do not practice For enlightenment (as some future goal separated from you). Your very practice of actualizing insight of anatta itself is practice-enlightenment. Sitting down is practice is actualization is Buddha-nature is enlightenment. Shitting too can be practice/actualization and that very act is Buddha-nature is enlightenment. Your very practice/actualization/act of just sitting, hearing the wind blowing, sight of scenery, walking on the street, chop wood carry water (without any delusion of self/Self) - that itself is practice-actualization-enlightenment, that is the total exertion where entire being is just entire sound, entire scenery, entire action.. This is non-dual practice and non-dual action.
    Awakening to Reality: Non-Action
    I was looking for the original link to this, because there was some posts on the... See More
    July 29 at 8:33pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo The Buddha teached direct immediate stuff as soon as he left the tree. Some of his closer friends understood it at once. But thousands gathered around him tha did not. So.. out of a deep sense of consideration he tough stuff like, be good, dont still, dont be jealous, dont kill, be calm (for you are a bit green yet to understand at once, so wait a little, pass your time reading the sutras, be a good fellow, distract yourself with some meditation and stuff like that.... till you also get it at once). But times have changed and those of us who are here gathered in these forums are mostly NOT green at all. At those early times there where perhaps 2 million people to squeeze from.... today we are 7 billion. Those of us that have been squeezed and are here are already mature. you may start kicking my bottom... but before you start... make sure you are able to find the entity that did the great job of awakening. LOL LOL
    July 29 at 8:38pm · Like
    Soh "The Buddha teached direct immediate stuff as soon as he left the tree. Some of his closer friends understood it at once."

    The Buddha taught the four noble truths -- the first teachings. It was about suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the path that ends suffering. The path that ends suffering taught by him is a gradual path of the noble eightfold path. There was one person who attained stream entry during that discourse (stream entry is one who realized the nature of dharma, as impermanent, empty of self), but nobody attained arahantship yet. Those first five disciples of his attained arahantship during the next discourse on Anatta -- called anattalakkhana sutta.
    July 29 at 8:40pm · Like
    Soh " So.. out of a deep sense of consideration he tough stuff like, be good, dont still, dont be jealous, dont kill, be calm "

    No, the practice is not merely about virtue and calmness, though that is part of it. That is just the basis for developing Wisdom, which is what liberates. The threefold training of virtue/integral sila, meditative composure/integral samadhi, and wisdom/integral prajna, and its components make up the noble eightfold path that leads to liberation.
    July 29 at 8:42pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Yea Soh... it is just like that the illusion was born. We know that training the BODY the BODY gets fit, training the mind it gets fit. Then we introjected such physical reality into the notion of some inner entity doing a great job of awakening. But the body is a body and that inner great fellow is just tendencies and propensities to believe in some solid self. HUGE difference. You woke up. Who the hell woke up? A body? A mind? Through training? The alarm clock rang once...twice..trice..ten times...on the elevens you woke up dead. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
    July 29 at 8:48pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Insight meditation trains one to directly perceive reality as it is. Just like training the body in gym to be fit. There is no self involved. Both works as it claim.
    July 29 at 8:48pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Yes!!!! That is the only training!!! Snap back.....snap back...snap back...snap back...snap back...snap back...snap where you once belong. Nothing else.
    July 29 at 8:50pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Insight meditation is vital for liberation, however, is supported by calm abiding and virtue. For instance: someone who is 100% caught up in discursive thoughts all the time, can hardly be able to directly see reality as it is. Therefore calm abiding/samatha is a support for insight meditation. Also: someone who has a very non-virtuous mind, is also ridden with evil thoughts, or strong guilt. Such a person will find it very difficult to experience calm-abiding. Therefore, virtue supports samadhi, samadhi supports wisdom.
    July 29 at 8:52pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Virtue my ass. So many sages said that even a serial killer can wake up instantaneously.
    July 29 at 8:54pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Only when he renounces violence and engages his mind in contemplating the dharma/truth. Angulimalla killed almost a thousand men, renounced violence after Buddha displayed supernatural powers, later became an arahant.
    July 29 at 8:55pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Insight is the end of violence and false morality. Not the other way around. Obviously once insight is there the very seeing of what is hindering stuff...falls away by itself... through the very insight.
    July 29 at 8:57pm · Like
    Soh Morality is never false, and although it may be contrived at first, it is still helpful and necessary. After insight, morality does become much more natural and effortless.
    July 29 at 8:59pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Morality is BS. Real moral behavior happens when the doer gets out of the way. In some places it is imoral not to kill your wifes lover.
    July 29 at 9:00pm · Like
    Soh That is your opinion, but all of Buddhadharma would disagree, as all forms of Buddhism upholds the importance of integral conduct -- be it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, including Zen, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen.
    July 29 at 9:02pm · Like
    Geovani Geo It is known
    July 29 at 9:02pm · Like
    Soh "Yes!!!! That is the only training!!! Snap back.....snap back...snap back...snap back...snap back...snap back...snap where you once belong. Nothing else."

    Also: insight meditation involves being mindful/bringing remembrance into the three dharma seals. This is why pointers like Bahiya Sutta, a pointer to anatta, etc, is quite important for many of our breakthroughs. One can pay attention to the 'present moment' and yet hold on to a Self -- either as an Eternal Witness -- or as a nondual Self being inseparable from everything, yet changeless, etc.

    In insight meditation, not only are we paying attention to the present experience, at the same time we also bring mindfulness/remembrance of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non-self/emptiness to every experience. We taste and realize the nature of every experience to be so. This leads to realization of anatta and later emptiness.
    July 29 at 9:06pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Of course. All kinds of more..... or less... subtle forms of conceptualization may and do happen, including a defused spiritualized or gasified self. Or the notion of being able to witness movement from within movement itself. One must be attentive to mind....or that tendencies to imagine a solid self can indeed do something - as a self.
    July 29 at 9:24pm · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Which are the three dharma seals? impermanence, non-self, and nirvana. (through google-ji)
    July 29 at 9:31pm · Edited · Like
    Ej Alex No-self, impermanence and suffering.
    July 29 at 9:32pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Strange I hit the first answer and it said "nirvana". The second says "suffering"
    July 29 at 9:34pm · Like
    Ej Alex I think it was Thich Nhat Hanh, who expressed it in that way. A question of perspective.
    July 29 at 9:36pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Buddhism seems to be a 99% via negativa. It says "impermanence" but does it question who is acknowledging it?
    July 29 at 9:36pm · Like
    Geovani Geo Is impermanence viewed from within impermanence? That would be a relative impermanence
    July 29 at 9:38pm · Edited · Like
    Ej Alex I have experienced it just as a temporary peak- experience. The observing and changeless background that seems to link every experience dissappeared. All what was left were floating bubble like forground epxeriences. Just change, without a someone who acknowledges it. I have also experienced this space like presence. Soh calls it I AM. This I AM was for me clearly a permanent and subjective eye that cannot see itself. The Anatta experience later almost culminated into a similar absorbtion of clarity, but without this unchanging abiding aspect. Just dependently originating nature without something personal or unchanging in it.
    July 29 at 9:45pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Geovani Geo: Emptiness in the Buddhadharma is a non-affirming negation. This means it is not neti-neti -- it does not negate phenomena in order to affirm the true existence of a substratum underlying phenomena, such as Awareness. However, what it negates is simply the four extremes, or summarized as, inherent existence, in Self and phenomena (Awareness included). It does not deny 'Awareness'. The early suttas by Buddha talks about the luminous mind (pabhassara citta) -- so it is clearly not the case that he does not experience/realize it, yet, he never made it into some sort of metaphysical Self or source or substratum like that of Vedanta. He does not posit an ontological existence/status to it. He does not, as Kalaka Sutta states, conceive a perceiver out of it.

    He also talks positively about 'suchness' as described in the Kalaka Sutta: , but does not affirm any sort of ontological status to it, in fact suchness is only revealed when such proliferations of ontological essences in both subject and object are released. The Treatise of Buddha-nature (???) by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu states: "Buddha-nature is the suchness (tathata) revealed through the two emptinesses of person and phenomenon. Due to suchness there is no ridiculing or ridiculed (i.e. a subject and object). Penetrating this principle one is free from delusional attachments." ???????????????????????????????????? (

    In short, the Buddhadharma does not reify or use negations to affirm [the real inherent existence of] Awareness, but does not deny Awareness, rather it simply allows us to realize the true nature of Awareness/phenomena -- luminous, and empty.

    However if you're trying to affirm something like an inherently existing changeless source/substratum or True Self of everything, then that is something that Buddha himself would refute. And that is what is so novel and perculiar about the Buddha's teachings.

    As Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith wrote before:

    "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."

    And as Thusness wrote to me in 2005:

    The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
    difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
    'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you
    must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.

    If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and
    Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

    When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness."

    And wrote to me in February 2006, "The different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it. But in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", (the sense that) there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion. There is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained. So for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"? For one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?"

    "In light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary. The so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging. There is hearing, no hearer...etc (This) is already beyond "True Self". Yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self". If there is no hearing...then something is wrong. There is hearing but no hearer. Put your time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness. "
    Kalaka Sutta: At Kalaka's Park
    [2] "If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, s... See More
    July 29 at 10:03pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo I read that. It is nice and I understand. It is quite clear the negative approach of Buddhism. Frankly speaking it is indeed the best way. May sound strange to you that I should say this. But the dangers involved in the positive way seem to be more challenging then the negative. Teh thing is that in any way the final step is into absolute ALONENESS.... and an almost impossibility to share. But goth ways lead to the same spot - they must. I will tell you a little story about myself that perhaps will make you see why I had no choice and had to follow the positive way.
    July 29 at 10:36pm · Like
    Geovani Geo I will tell this not to show of or something like that, but to invite you to doing your best to "feel" the core of the content. I dont remember my age but by calculations I must have been less then 7 years old for we left that little town here in Brazil when I was 7years and 1 month old. I did not read or write yet. My father and my mother had a science background and where atheists. We never talked of religion at home except in a half mocking way. Church for me seemed like a "place for old people to do something inside there". Very well.... one day I was walking down the lane to meet some friend by the lake and suddenly I freezed. I remember that I had to stop walking with the tremendous impact of what I had seen. The best way to describe it is what I thought at that time: "among all the people on the world (everybody!!!) only this boy here is seeing from inside out..... all the others I see from outside in". It was an absolute fact, I pondered, that none could take away from me. I did not feel special at all because I knew that others could have the same realization if they wanted (I did not feel possessed by some strange foreign entity or sometin). Stop reading here for a minute or two. Try to put yourself in place of that kid the best way you can.

    From that time onwards i used to play the game of pointing out this strange IMPERSONAL fact to others..a few would get it... but I soon realized that most would not. It was so strange that it was not obvious to everybody. I did not feel that I was different with some special qualities at all... for I knew it was a universal fact. I would say to my friends: look!! you are the only one looking from behind two eyes!! They would stare for a moment..but no.

    It was a partial insight into something absolute and impersonal - the very deepest root of the sense of I-ness. NOT I am this or that....but simply I am.

    Much later when I first read a strange named book called the Upanishads I realized that i was not the only one. Funny that when later I read Krishnamurti who says there is not any "I" - I understood what he meant w/o any apparent contradiction... and I knew the difference between the via positiva and the negativa.

    So... how could i have followed the negative way? All my efforts and striving where directed towards understanding the true nature of that I.
    July 29 at 11:08pm · Like · 2
    David Vardy It can also be seen as a progression and often is as a matter of experience. From looking through two eyes to looking with the one eye (no face), to no-head (seeing as a container for what's seen), to the absence of someone looking/seeing but something seen (just that), to just seeing in the absence of seer or anything seen.
    July 30 at 12:35am · Like · 1
    David Vardy Your experience back then, Geo, was of the I AM position. It can be searing when realized at such a young age. Some kids are operating in and out of there without the awareness of it, or already forming what it means 'to be a person'. My daughter began to speak from the I AM position at the age of 8, my son 10. It's almost haunting to hear a child speak from there. I first thought they were just mimicking something they might have overheard me saying to a friend or something. But it's easy enough to test. There are hundreds of questions that can be asked. When you see the child not make one mistake, you know. It's also clearly in the eyes. It saddened me in some ways because they never adjusted to school after that. It took the wind right out of their respective sails. Only recently my daughter has returned to college, at the age of 24, finally enjoying the day to day. It's as if time had literally stopped for them, one of the downsides of 'being as if one is a container'
    July 30 at 1:03am · Like · 1
    Ej Alex Yeah Geovani, it appears that you still stick to the Upanishads and think that Buddhism is the same but negative in expression. Just consider that maybe there is more into it. Aren´t you curious if there could be really a significant difference between Hinduism and the buddhist doctrine? Or am I understanding it wrong from the start? You see it guys it appears to be really hard to understand if somenone is clearly on the buddhist path. Could it be just a language thing? Or is it really that Vedanta turns at some point into buddhist view? This is something I still don´t understand clearly. Maybe there is a natural progression after the collapse of the witness and then from one mind to no-mind?
    July 30 at 1:05am · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Ej, what do you mean by the collapse of the witness? As far as I can make out, that occurs after no-mind.
    July 30 at 1:20am · Like · 1
    Ej Alex I think that Ramana Maharishi talked himself about that, or Kenneth Folk from Gear 2 to Gear 3, or Greg Gode´s Direct Path. As I understand it right now, the collapse of the witness results into a substantial-non-dualism. Or maybe not. That´s what I don´t understand. Will it result in the second level of understanding non-dual or the third:
    July 30 at 1:27am · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Okay, I see. I took 'collapse of the witness' to mean no trace of witness, but I see how 'collapse' might still leave it intact in some form or another.
    July 30 at 1:34am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh The whole via negativa (neti neti) and via positiva (affirming luminous clarity) comes in a pair, that is not what emptiness is about.

    "However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta, i.e., and ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. The significance of Shunyata is the absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (svabhava) and that fact is the ultimate truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite of the ultimate truth of the Hindu Atman-Brahman. So Shunyata or emptiness can never be via negativa, a negative way of describing the Atman-Brahman of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen and Mahamudra is the same and officially accepted by all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (except those who adhere to the Shentong view) and that is the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i.e., the unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability (unupalabdhi)." --

    That said, realization of anatta is what leads to the most vivid, clear, free, alive and spontaneous living. The taste of 'Presence' pertaining to the mind realm, is now experienced as all foreground manifestation. A sound, a sight, has the same intense gapless taste/clarity as 'I AM', except it is hearing/sound without hearer, seeing/scenery without seer. Same taste, but made effortless, without leaving traces, marks, which are mere images and ghosts of what clarity is.

    An inherently existing Self, changeless, etc, are not the true face of Presence, they are only a deeply rooted delusional view of inherency, it is merely caging and limiting clarity, which is non-local, non-dual, dynamic. True mature taste of Presence requires anatta and twofold emptying, without anatta the experience of Presence will never be clear, vivid and effortless. There is no denying of the 'Presence' or 'Witness', only understanding the true nature of it, in terms of no-self, impermanence, D.O., emptiness/non-arising. Then Presence is vivid, clear, self-releasing and traceless rather than leaving marks and traces.
    Awakening to Reality: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
    Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me: I do not want you to have knowledge regardin... See More
    July 30 at 1:39am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Geovani Geo Yes..of course i question these things Alex. This one of the reasons I enjoy the net. There is the possibility to listen to different perspectives. Of course I question whether someone coming from a negative way is indeed standing at the same "spot" where I am. Some seem to be, yes. Others not and others I dont know. But I like also to read different people. For instance there that Indian Lady called Anandamayi Ma that beautifully sheds light in both ways and also the instant and the gradual ones. She is great. Even Maharshi has an eclectic view about these approaches. Very interesting though is Krishanmurti. He is the pinnacle of the negative way. He says no... but his teachings are very similar to the Buddhas, completely avoiding the positive pointing to the ground of being. BUT...every now and then he doesnt resist and does point to it in a totally positive way and those are the moments where all doubts fall away regarding this issue. I remember one dialog between K and Bohm and Sheinberg. They went through all the nuances of delusion the false idea of the I, etc.... But then K says is this all there is to it? I am nothing so I am everyting? Seems so shallow, there is one more layer beneath this all. Bohm says "one more??"...K says yes..Sheinberg seems to understand the whole thing and says: are we all sharing this...are you sharing this Dr. Bhom... are the viewers sharing this? Krishnamurti stops him and says "no...there is only That (the ground)" In the "Ending of Time" such ground of being is again discussed in positive terms. Very very good book.
    July 30 at 1:42am · Edited · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo David... i dont know waht you are talking about re your kids. That is not my experience and it did not affect me in any negative way. Judging others behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The kids might have gone through all sort of life experiences - how could I tell?
    July 30 at 1:40am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I think it's silly to continue on this crusade against the "competing" traditions, especially so if it entails wielding emptiness against, for example, Advaita Vedanta. Emptiness as we know it in the traditions today was a response to the Abidhammic blunder, a Buddhist project.
    July 30 at 1:46am · Edited · Like
    Soh Emptiness is taught by Buddha, it is not invented by Madhyamika.
    July 30 at 1:47am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I have not found a single place in the suttas where 'svabhava' is refuted. Not because it shouldn't be, but because the issue arose long after Gotamas passing. Context is king.
    July 30 at 1:48am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Actually this is the first time since I am in FB that i am able to discuss this issue at length. I enjoy it...but agree that it has a certain limit from where on it becomes meaningless an repetitive and silly - above all. Soh....the nature of reality is not tought by anyone. I dont need some other to tell me who am I. If you stop and think of it its just ridiculous
    July 30 at 1:49am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh The Buddha used terms like empty (ritta), unsubstantial (tuccha), without essence (asara), which are all refutations of svabhava
    July 30 at 1:51am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo What is svabhava?
    July 30 at 1:53am · Like
    Soh own-being, intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence
    July 30 at 1:53am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo To refute own-being is a joke.
    July 30 at 1:54am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo Here we are discussing and refuting "being"!!! LOL
    July 30 at 1:56am · Like
    Geovani Geo I go as far as saying that being or not-being does not apply.
    July 30 at 1:56am · Like
    Soh There is no own-being besides sense of being happening, no self besides manifestation. This is no seer besides words appearing on screen that is vividly clear, alive.

    Here, there is no 'sense of being' in and of itself at all, only action of typing, colours, tap-tap..
    July 30 at 1:57am · Edited · Like · 4
    David Vardy All front, no back.
    July 30 at 1:59am · Unlike · 3
    Geovani Geo What did you mean with the word "itself"?
    July 30 at 1:59am · Like
    Geovani Geo Agree David Vardy
    July 30 at 1:59am · Edited · Like
    Garrett Baker Excellent Thread . Dharma Connection should be open to public. . . just saying. .
    July 30 at 2:00am · Like · 2
    Soh Existing in and of itself, intrinsically, irregardless of conditions, changelessly.
    July 30 at 2:00am · Like · 1
    Soh Garrett Baker: I personally do not want to spam my non-Buddhist friends on news feed with all our discussions... and I think many do not want that to happen too. Therefore I think it's best to keep this closed, but anyone is welcome to join.
    July 30 at 2:01am · Edited · Like · 5
    Geovani Geo deleted
    July 30 at 2:04am · Edited · Like
    David Vardy All front, no back can still be substantial however. What's important is seeing that front too is insubstantial.
    July 30 at 2:06am · Unlike · 3
    Kyle Dixon Why is refuting own-being a joke?
    July 30 at 2:06am · Like
    Kyle Dixon If one chooses to see discourse that defines traditions as competition then that is their own projection. Comparing and contrasting traditions is not competition.
    July 30 at 2:08am · Like
    Kyle Dixon But comparing, contrasting, refuting, affirming, etc. these are all integral aspects of any system when that system is interested in defining itself.

    It is nothing new. The Dzogchen tantras mention Adi Shankara by name when refuting Advaita, it's quite normal to have rhetoric of that nature.

    There is no perennialistic soup to uphold.
    July 30 at 2:12am · Like · 1
    Soh There is never a time anyone has experienced something existing in and of itself. Because what is experienced is always manifested, a hidden core or self-existence is only a inference based on deeply rooted delusion/view of inherency. If all five senses are shut, there is still Mind, a pure sense of Existence or Presence even without mental concepts/images, still is. But even this is only fully manifesting and empty of a hidden, inherently existing 'ghostly' entity behind it all.
    July 30 at 2:12am · Edited · Like · 5
    Ej Alex Not necessary competition, just honest curiosity.
    July 30 at 2:12am · Like
    Garrett Baker Ahh , Now the meaning becomes clear. One mans Truth is another mans Spam. . Woe is Truth. .
    July 30 at 2:13am · Like · 2
    David Vardy Spam in a can.
    July 30 at 2:21am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Comparing, contrasting, refuting and affirming is also ones own projection. As mentioned earlier, unyieldingly holding on to such divisiveness necessitates a certain ignorance.

    As with oranges and apples. They are both fruit; so comparable. Yet, 'fruit' has no fixed identity and is therefore unsuited as a basis for comparison; so incomparable. Since it is not exclusively either, it is therefore neither inclusively both.
    July 30 at 2:22am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo Deconstruction is an expedient means to clean conditionings... not something that needs to be embraced. Once seen that all is indeterminate,such indetermination includes leaving things just as they are.
    July 30 at 2:24am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo A log is a log..a log is not a log... a log is a log
    July 30 at 2:25am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Stian, I of course disagree. In the conventional sense comparing and contrasting is important. If anything I would also charge that your position on the matter necessitates a certain ignorance.
    July 30 at 2:27am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland True difference or identity does not obtain; that is emptiness. How is it conceived that difference, through means such as comparing and contrasting, get's a pass, yet identity, exemplified by perennialism, is denied? Silly, methinks.
    July 30 at 2:30am · Edited · Like
    Geovani Geo I'll wait til this comes back to plain English
    July 30 at 2:30am · Like · 1
    Geovani Geo What is perenialism in teh light of timelessness?
    July 30 at 2:32am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Difference, through comparison and contrast, is just as contingent, and no less 'superior' or more correct (lol, how does that even make sense) as/than unity. It's futile to try and get rid of or negate identity through difference—it's absolutely wacky. This is the ignorance I'm talking about: to uphold difference, one must *actively ignore*—turn a blind eye to—identity (and vice versa).
    July 30 at 2:38am · Edited · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Conventional difference and identity always obtains.
    July 30 at 2:37am · Like
    Kyle Dixon And the conventional is all you have to work with, especially in an online forum.
    July 30 at 2:38am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Emptiness is the fact that each conventional partition lacks inherency.
    July 30 at 2:38am · Like
    David Vardy The notion of Identity is never not substantial and ultimately vulnerable to deconstruction.
    July 30 at 2:39am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Perennialism is a view of an underlying inherency. The "one mountain" all paths traverse... it is a fallacy.
    July 30 at 2:39am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle, of course conventional is not all we have to work with, because conventionally there is conventional and ultimate. The ultimate, though merely a conventional implement, allows a penetration of the conventional in a way that mere conventionality does not.
    July 30 at 2:55am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David, do you mean that your statement is not likewise applicable to 'difference'?
    July 30 at 2:41am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon The conventional is all we have here in this forum... if you disagree then put the taste of an orange in my mouth right now.
    July 30 at 2:41am · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Difference is also a fallacy, Kyle. You can't pick up only one end of a stick.
    July 30 at 2:42am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Yes, the enumerated ultimate, as I just referenced. The lack of inherency in the relative or conventional. That does not deny conventional partitions in their conventional context.
    July 30 at 2:42am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Dude, one can not negate identity without also negating difference (and vice versa). If you do not understand this correct cognition, then maybe ask your teachers
    July 30 at 2:44am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I mean, you can go with a big indeterminate soup of indifference... welcome to the grand purusha of Vedanta.
    July 30 at 2:44am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon I on the other hand would rather exercise some skillful means in the context of Buddhism... you're welcome to join when you find your way out of the forest of perennialism.
    July 30 at 2:47am · Like

No comments:

Post a Comment