[thuscomeone]

Let me start this off with a quote:

"Buddha’s teachings are so simple and straightforward. If you find them complicated, it is only because you have made them so. You may think, “I have a Ph.D. and have amassed all this knowledge, yet I still can’t figure out how to begin practicing Dharma.” The remedy is to take a good look at your own mind.
-Lama Thubten Yeshe, in "Wisdom Energy"

Just putting that there because I love it.

Anyway, I see a lot of confusion about Buddhism on this board. People seem to be in the middle regarding it. I have been learning the dharma for about 8 months now. I have dedicated the majority of my time to it. I feel that this has been extremely beneficial. I have no teacher or lineage. I have been studying on my own, looking into my own mind. In this topic, I hope to clear up some major points of Buddhism that I have come to learn about in my inquiry. Perhaps it will be helpful to the bums here.

First of all, I will start with the three characteristics. Impermanence, suffering and not self. Not self could also be called dependent origination. Then dependent origination + impermanence = emptiness. But I feel that anyone seriously interested in gaining insights into what Buddha was talking about should investigate these three characteristics.

First, impermanence. Now, it is safe to say that there is not a single phenomena or thing that is not changing and decaying. Our consciousness (sensations, thoughts, etc.) is always changing, our bodies is always changing. All environmental phenomena are always changing. Even stars and the sun itself are constantly decaying. If we truly investigate, we can see this is true. Nothing has any stability. Now, if things truly existed - ourselves, our minds and all other things, they would have to have some sort of identity. Otherwise, what is it that is existing?
Identity (or essence) requires stability. If all things are unstable, nothing can possibly have any identity and thus this is one reason why there are no actual existent things.

Another reason why there are no actual existent things that is due to impermanence is that, because things are impermanent, "things" (actual existents) are completely unfindable. Nothing endures. There is no constant anything. Actual existents must be constants. Thus one cannot find any constants in impermanent phenomena and thus there is no truly existent anything. This may be just a different way of stating the previous point but it helps to see things from as many perspectives as possible.

Now, If there are no "things" (real, actual existents) then there can also be no absence of those things (non existence). Existence and non existence require things to be existent and non existent. No things = no existents, no non existents, no both, no neither. Therefore, we can say that things are beyond the four extremes of existence. This also serves as the middle way which avoids eternalism and nihilism. This is also one proof of non inherent existence (non true existence) or emptiness or not self.

Second, not self. I am relating not self here with dependent origination/arising.
Just as impermanence is a natural way that all things are, so is dependent origination/arising. There is no thing that is not dependent on something else. There is no thing that does not arise dependently through causes and conditions. if we examine our reality, we can see this very easily. Our consciousness/mind arises dependently on endless previous moments of mind and on external phenomena. Consciousness always arises dependently. All matter also always arises dependently from causes and conditions. Even space itself is dependently arisen. It, as a whole, is dependent on all it's parts - north, south, east and west and it's parts are all dependent on other parts - east depends on west, south depends on north, etc. So, in the case of space, neither the parts nor the whole have independent existence. If things truly existed, they would be independent. A "thing" is, by definition, independent. This is because a thing is a particular. As such, it is separate and independent of all other things. It has unique own being, own self, own essence/identity, own nature. Thus whatever is dependent on other things is not a real actual existent thing. This is another proof of non inherent existence.

Also, if consciousness, all forms of matter and all things truly existed, they would not need to arise (come into being) at all. This is because existent things do not need to arise - they exist. To say that an existent thing arises through causes and conditions is absurd. Why would an existent thing need to arise/to come about through causes? It exists. To say that it would need to would be to allow for absurd, pointless production. Existents do not need/are not dependent on causes to give rise to them. Therefore whatever arises is not inherently/truly existent. Another way to say it that is used frequently is that whatever arises, in truth, does not arise in the sense that it is not a true existent - an actual, real thing.

So for reasons of impermanence and dependence, everything there is is non inherently existent. This means all things are beyond the four extremes of existence - not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. Another way to say this is that there are no "things." This is also, as stated before, the middle way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

In Buddhism it is always said that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form." Sometimes the word appearance is used instead of form. Appearance is a better word, I feel, because it fits better with the non solidity of things after one has analyzed them and found them to be not truly existent. So, after we see that form is emptiness, form or appearance does not vanish. At this point, some think that emptiness is completely other than form. It is strangely easy to think this. Actually emptiness is and always has been none other than appearance (and awareness).

This is because there is no emptiness apart from impermanent and dependently arisen appearances and there are no impermanent and dependently arisen appearances apart from emptiness. Appearances and awareness arise dependently and are impermanent because they are empty (not truly existent). And they are empty because they arise dependently and are impermanent. If appearances and awareness were not empty, they would never change and would not need to arise. It is their emptiness nature that allows appearances and awareness to change and arise dependently. Emptiness makes all things possible. Without emptiness, one could never study the dharma and achieve liberation or learn about the true nature of things. Change would be impossible. The consequences of a universe where things are truly existent are absurd. Nothing could happen, nothing could change and nothing could interact. There would just be floating static entities in space. It is truly crazy to think about the ridiculous logical consequences of the beliefs of a majority of people in this world.

Thus appearance and awareness, since they are impermanent and dependently arisen and emptiness is not apart from impermanence and dependent arising, are emptiness itself. But one must remember that emptiness is not a thing, an actual existent. It is the true quality of phenomena. Therefore, it IS phenomena.

Now after seeing that emptiness, awareness and appearances are inseperable, it dawns that appearances and awareness are complete purity. Since they are naturally empty, they are naturally free from the main cause of our suffering - notions of true existence (and really, from all forms of identification).

Therefore, if we just let things be, everything is already liberated and naturally pure. Goodness (the absence of suffering) pervades everywhere. The absence of suffering is in the true nature of things themselves. Fear is pure, anger is pure, stress is pure. All mental states, all thoughts, all phenomena are already pure and infused with goodness. We could say that goodness, or even love, is the natural state of all creation, all that is.

One thing that also needs to be emphasized I think as well is that, since permanence and independence cannot be established then impermanence, dependence and emptiness should not be reified conceptually either. For impermanence depends upon permanence and dependence depends upon independence. Without one half, the other cannot stand/be on it's own and thus collapses. Therefore because of dependence (emptiness), impermanence, dependence and emptiness should not be asserted/reified ultimately either. So in the end, neither permanence, independence, non emptiness or impermanence, dependence and emptiness should be reified. Perhaps this is the meaning of the emptiness of emptiness. The dependence of dependence. If any seasoned Buddhists could perhaps correct me here, I would be grateful

This brings us to the third and final characteristic - suffering. We suffer mainly because of our attachment to identification or our attachment to true existence. From identification, there arises division - "this" and "that." From this we compare this and that and we assert that one is superior and one is inferior or one is better or worse. Thus one thinks that he/she is not good enough. They struggle, strive to be something, to become something that they are told they should be that is superior to what they already are. From this constant comparison, division and desire to become arises all conflict - fear, constant feelings of being incomplete, anger, hate, hurt, sorrow. This is a simple explanation but if one looks into it and traces psychological suffering back to it's origin, it will almost always end up back at attachment to identification. Thus the root of suffering can basically be linked back to our attachment to identification or, to say it another way, our attachment to things as truly existent. When we truly see emptiness, we cut suffering at it's root. Since there are no things in "what is", identification, since it is based on "things" or assertion of things/particulars, does not represent at all "what is."

Notes

On the two truths. The two truths are usually talked about in Buddhism. I personally do not care for the device. In the end, in what really matters, there are no two levels of truth anyway. There is just this one truth of combined emptiness, appearance and awareness.

On non duality. In Buddhism, I hear the word thrown around a lot. Non duality is not considered merging with anything as far as I know. From what I have gathered, non duality in Buddhism refers to this threefold fact: because there are no things in what is and identification is based on things and identification is always dualistic aka based on "this" and "that", duality does not apply to "what is". Feel free to correct me on this.

On "awareness." In my lurking this forum, I have come across one user Xabir2005 (?) who seems to always say that awareness and phenomena are inseperable. Or "awareness is the manifestation", "there is nothing but awareness", etc. I have no idea what this means to be honest. Perhaps he means that awareness and phenomena are inseparable in the sense that they both have the same characteristics (impermanent, empty, dependent). Emptiness, as far as I know, does not take away the obvious natural diversity of things. Mind and external phenomena are not "one" in the same after one realizes emptiness. They are still distinct. Appearances and awareness are obviously diverse and distinct. Just like my hand is not a tree and a tree is not my hand. It always gives me the idea that he is reifying some sort of super awareness which everything "is." Well anyway Xabir, if you read this let me know what's up. Maybe you have some insight that I have not stumbled upon.

On Rebirth and Karma. This is the basic reasoning I have come up with for rebirth. Consciousness can not possibly end after death. To say it could, would be to say it could be non existent. But, since consciousness has never been truly existent, it can never be non existent. Again, since there are no "things" to begin with, there can be no absence of those things. Therefore, consciousness cannot just end and become non existent at death. It must go on infinitely, constantly changing and arising dependently.

I have a very hard time understanding karma and rebirth (karma moreso) and the specifics of how they work. For instance, does an enlightened being have karma? Why/how is karma just intentional action? Why doesn't non intentional action leave seeds as well? Well I would appreciate if perhaps the Buddhists on this forum could help me get a clear, concise and correct understanding of rebirth and karma, the specifics of each and how they work together and are interrelated...

This post has been edited by thuscomeone: 21 October 2009 - 12:15 AM

[Vajrahridaya]

Good job for 8 months. See, doesn't take long to get some type of comprehension of clarity when one is using dependent origination as the tool for insight.

Wonderful.

I'm on my way to sleep now, but I will come back tomorrow when I get up and we can discuss some of the aspects that you are not completely clear on and maybe we can help each other?


Nice post though. Some Prasangika and Dzogchen. I like how you just go right to the truth of integration skipping the two truths model of Madhyamaka. That's Dzogchen.

It's good you understand that non-duality in Buddhism is not because everything is one substance, or arising from a single substratum or source, but rather that all the multitudes of things are just empty of inherent existence, so it's a non-substantial non-duality.

Ok, the typing is waking my GF... better go to sleep. Talk tomorrow for sure. I'm impressed!

[thuscomeone]

yes I'll certainly be back at some point tomorrow. Right now, it's sleep time.

[nightwatchdog]

You have a solid foundation here. Now it is time to set aside the discussion, and take action. The thinking mind is very aware of what we are trying to accomplish, and a wonderful road map has been drawn up. All of your questions have already been answered. Everything changing, nothing solid, like the scenery passing by as you go your Dharma way.

Where are you now?

[Marblehead]

Interesting thread. I will try to keep my mouth shut and just read.

Peace & Love!

[Blasto]

I would agree with everyone - you've got a good foundation. The only suggestion I would make is to supplement your studies with a couple of titles that address dependent origination from a western perspective.

The Dharma of Natural Systems: Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory by Joanna Macy.
Cool title, eh? Once we discover that the Paticca Samupadda, the doctrine of dependent origination, is a doctrine that is utterly consistent with ecology and general systems theory, we discover the element of the real world that supports our awakening.
http://www.amazon.co...d...4417&sr=1-1

Fritjof Capra's 25th anniversary edition of his masterpiece "The Tao of Physics" also includes his update regarding the essential consistency of eastern thought and ecology as well. We are all connected, even to inanimate processes like the rock cycle and the water cycle. Once we acquire a deep awareness of our connectedness and participation in Indra's Web, our identity becomes extremely stable, insofar as an ecosystem brimming with biodiversity is stronger and more stable than an ecosystem that has suffered a blow to its biodiversity.

I realize this is tangential to what you have introduced (we always are) but I have yet to discover a lucid discussion about the ecological and environmental consequences of eastern thought, particularly Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. We are so self-absorbed in here about how powerful and wise we are becoming, rather than acknowleging the reality and implications of our essential unity.

We live one life.

[nightwatchdog]

For more mind-food on interdedpendant co-origination (a more precise term according to my understanding), try "Each Moment Is The Universe" by Dainin Katagiri, Roshi. His words are clear as a bell. Gassho.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Great post! .

thuscomeone, on Oct 21 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

On "awareness." In my lurking this forum, I have come across one user Xabir2005 (?) who seems to always say that awareness and phenomena are inseperable. Or "awareness is the manifestation", "there is nothing but awareness", etc. I have no idea what this means to be honest. Perhaps he means that awareness and phenomena are inseparable in the sense that they both have the same characteristics (impermanent, empty, dependent). Emptiness, as far as I know, does not take away the obvious natural diversity of things. Mind and external phenomena are not "one" in the same after one realizes emptiness. They are still distinct. Appearances and awareness are obviously diverse and distinct. Just like my hand is not a tree and a tree is not my hand. It always gives me the idea that he is reifying some sort of super awareness which everything "is." Well anyway Xabir, if you read this let me know what's up. Maybe you have some insight that I have not stumbled upon.

Existence is Awareness because nothing could be said to exist without the awareness of it. The tree and the hand comes about due to your mind's distinctions of something being a tree and some other thing being a hand. Not at all different from how your thoughts function.

Quote

On Rebirth and Karma. This is the basic reasoning I have come up with for rebirth. Consciousness can not possibly end after death. To say it could, would be to say it could be non existent. But, since consciousness has never been truly existent, it can never be non existent. Again, since there are no "things" to begin with, there can be no absence of those things. Therefore, consciousness cannot just end and become non existent at death. It must go on infinitely, constantly changing and arising dependently.

I have a very hard time understanding karma and rebirth (karma moreso) and the specifics of how they work. For instance, does an enlightened being have karma? Why/how is karma just intentional action? Why doesn't non intentional action leave seeds as well? Well I would appreciate if perhaps the Buddhists on this forum could help me get a clear, concise and correct understanding of rebirth and karma, the specifics of each and how they work together and are interrelated...

Karma is a made up habit of your mind identifying causes and conditions to have object truths to them. You make them up, habit it, then suffer in it. The enlightened being has completely exhausted all bounds of karma because he sees that all causes and conditions arise from grasping of "this" causing "that." He is no longer the prisoner to his minds workings. But the process of liberation itself can be said to be an enlightened act.

By the way, I'm not a "seasoned" Buddhist. I don't even know if I'm Buddhist. So don't take my words at face value. .

This post has been edited by Lucky7Strikes: 21 October 2009 - 07:16 AM

[tumoessence]

Great post thuscomeone, and great work for eight month's!
I have a naive question here.
When did and where did
"Actual existents must be constants" become a standard for saying and measuring whether something is real or not?
For example if a plant grows dies, yet reappears next spring over and over and then over time the plant changes its form as adaptation to a changing environment does that mean it doesn't exist? Even if its environment were to disappear has that plant fully disappeard?
And for something to "exist" does it only exist if it is separate? I often hear something is not real because it has no separate existence. Of course things don't have separate existence. Everything is embedded in an environment of things that "appear" to be separate. Does that mean those elements don't exist? Does rhythm exist? Does energy exist? Is rhythm constant?
Sorry if I go a little off topic here.

[MudLotus]

Good work, keep going.

You touch on non-duality at the end and it sounds like you will be exploring advaita type teachers like Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi if you have not already. With all of the work you are putting into your studies they may now resonate for you. You'll find so often phrasings like:

Suchness
I Am That
So It Is

and what sometimes feels so simple may other times capture the flavor of the processes you are describing.

Per karma, the best word I've heard is everything gets recycled, from the most evolved to the most debased levels of sentience. If you consider time and space to become more perceivable as elastic at higher and higher states of awareness, then it might make sense that if this recycling process is ongoing even the most awake of beings residing in dharma fields for eons are subject to these processes of creation and destruction. If just may take thousands or millions of equivalents to our life spans to occur at higher levels. If there is a true hierarchy of being, then all things are phasing through the chain of being according to their karmic unfolding, either stepping up or stepping down, but essentially moving in some direction of evolution or de-evolution.

How you are reconstituted (recycled) then probably has to do with the sustainability of your awareness and the quality of your intent. Attaining Buddhahood implies being a virtuous being, but that doesn't mean you sit in the pure lands forever if you stop working at cultivation. Just because you are enlightened doesn't mean you deserve an eternal free ticket and don't have to work at anything or just lounge about in bliss and not help any other beings now that you think you are off the meat wheel.

As I understand it, there are many realms and liberating yourself from human reincarnation is not really the point. First, you can reincarnate as a lower being so being human is a great privilege and not to be taken for granted. Second, just because you are awakened enough to pass into a non-flesh form of consciousness and reside in a higher realm you can still be bound to conceptual states and ever more refined distinctions of beingness and form. So, liberation from physical reincarnation is not the ne plus ultra of cultivation and liberation from death, it is merely a step up the ladder of the cosmic dice table and you have perhaps even more responsibility for your thoughts and actions at a higher evolutionary state. Or you could reincarnate consciously as a human again to help people learn the dharma too.

A dung beetle is probably less directed in their intentions than a dolphin or a man and so their bodily death and recycling of their consciousness is probably less influenced by the actions in their lifetime. When a being becomes aware of the dharma, they are essentially being given the keys to the car in some ways and now can drive their vehicle during their lifespan with a far greater capacity to influence how they end up being processed in that endless cosmic food chain called reincarnation. I ain't dead yet (this time), so just some ideas, not doctrine.

This post has been edited by MudLotus: 21 October 2009 - 08:53 AM

[xabir2005]

Lucky7Strikes, on Oct 21 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

Existence is Awareness because nothing could be said to exist without the awareness of it. The tree and the hand comes about due to your mind's distinctions of something being a tree and some other thing being a hand. Not at all different from how your thoughts function.

What you describe is non-duality but be careful of the word 'existence'. As Thusness would comment on Steven Norquist's article which is pretty well written "What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it?":

Steven: To make it more clear, stuff is happening but no one is doing it. Emergence proceeds and consciousness is aware. The unawake person, the person that doesn’t know what's going on believes that they are acting, that the human them exists. The reality is, the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist and that is consciousness and that is all.

Thusness: Manifestations/Appearances are all consciousness. Consciousness is experienced directly but not the “nature” of consciousness. The nature of consciousness is empty.


And also a comment to someone who had recently gained nondual insight and said:

It seems like a breakthrough. One needs to watch what is real. The sensation of the body is real. The sensation of the breathing is real. There is no I. Everything is an occurence. A phenomena that is experienced. Thoughts. Emotions. And when the I is removed then there is a shift that comes with the change in the vantage point. So 'I' dont breathe. 'I' dont eat. There is a sensation of taste and smell. There is a feeling of satisfaction. Body and mind follows its laws from the power of nature.

Thusness replied:

It is better not to treat sensation as 'real' as the word 'real' in Buddhism carries a different meaning. It is rather a moment of vivid, luminous presence but nothing 'real'. It may be difficult to realise why is this important but it will become clearer in later phase of our progress.


Now.... we can explore what we call 'sensation', 'tree', etc further. Looking at a tree, there is no observer 'in here' separate and looking 'out there' at the tree... the observer is the observed and there is only just the suchness of the tree revealing itself with 0 distance, the suchness of tree is itself consciousness.

Yet, if we look carefully, is there really true existence? Is there a flower-ness or red-ness of a flower? Is it really real?

As Thusness would say, if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

Likewise when standing in front of a burning fire pit, the entire phenomena of ‘fire’, the burning heat, the whole sensation of ‘hotness’ that are so vividly present and seem so real but when examined they are also not inherently “there” -- merely dependently manifest whenever conditions are there. It is amazing how dualistic and inherent views have caged seamless experience in a who-where-when construct.


The realisation of this emptiness, as Namdrol says, is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

"Form is similar to a foam,
Feeling is like water bubbles,
Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,
Formations are similar with a banana tree,
Consciousness is like an illusion."


(p.s. that phrase is originally derived from the Buddha in Phena Sutta, which is not a Mahayana sutra but actually a Pali canon sutta)


This is the insight into dependent origination and emptiness... which is an insight just as important as non-duality and anatta.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 21 October 2009 - 12:00 PM

[MudLotus]

As part of the digestion of the terms and concepts under discussion, I'd like to throw into the hat this one:

En-Joy-Ment

which I do believe is something that occurs when truly at ease with things as they are.

I believe it is an important notion that allows for pleasure and happiness to be fruits of attaining higher degrees of awareness.

It is important in my estimation to be able to enjoy life and to take some of the weight of seeking and inquiring off your back so that as you become more at peace with your status as a human being seeking equanimity you also do not slip into the traps of nihlism or narcissism.

It is of no help to you or of any service to others if you try to obliterate your SELF in your quest to awaken. You are still as you are and your value to others can usually be measured pretty accurately by your gratitude for being alive and ability to experience and share that which you enjoy. So surrendering yourself to some void or whatever people may fantasize is never necessary to be who you are. Nihlism does not take you very far and it certainly is not enjoyable.

And becoming overly obsessed with the how or why or proving the efficacy of pursuing awakening may find you falling in love with your answers, with your supposed accomplishments and while your energy may be soaring and you think you're in love with the cosmos, you may just be so vain as to develop a god complex and who is going to enjoy you then? Maybe your groupies, but then you'll have to keep them in line when the natives get restless.

Just some thoughts on the en-joy-ment of What You Are and What Is. I believe you may wake up and lose identification with your self, but it may help to enjoy the process of being and inquiring along the way rather then gripping your mind and heart too tightly in the quest for gnosis. Push and glide is what I say. Push hard to know, then relax into it and glide for a bit.

[thuscomeone]

tumoessence, on Oct 21 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

Great post thuscomeone, and great work for eight month's!
I have a naive question here.
When did and where did
"Actual existents must be constants" become a standard for saying and measuring whether something is real or not?
For example if a plant grows dies, yet reappears next spring over and over and then over time the plant changes its form as adaptation to a changing environment does that mean it doesn't exist? Even if its environment were to disappear has that plant fully disappeard?
And for something to "exist" does it only exist if it is separate? I often hear something is not real because it has no separate existence. Of course things don't have separate existence. Everything is embedded in an environment of things that "appear" to be separate. Does that mean those elements don't exist? Does rhythm exist? Does energy exist? Is rhythm constant?
Sorry if I go a little off topic here.

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.

xabir2005, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Now.... we can explore what we call 'sensation', 'tree', etc further. Looking at a tree, there is no observer 'in here' separate and looking 'out there' at the tree... the observer is the observed and there is only just the suchness of the tree revealing itself with 0 distance, the suchness of tree is itself consciousness.

See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

This post has been edited by thuscomeone: 21 October 2009 - 09:47 AM

[MudLotus]

thuscomeone, on Oct 21 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.
See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

Hmmm, maybe it is important to acknowledge that discernment is always an important part of any advanced practice, is it not?

If in your state you start to lose referentiality such as to what is Tree or You and what is Mind or Observing Mind, does that become evidentiary proof that you are empty, have experienced emptiness or that things are inherently empty?

Are these still conceptions?

Is not inquiry always dependent on some degree of witnessing mind?

So WHO is the perceiver of these THINGS or NON-THINGS?

If it is nobody, is that a NOBODY with any singularity of mind at all?

I'd say so.

And if that witnessing mind, the discernment to purify consciousness and transcend to higher states is actively engaged, will it dissolve upon reaching some Omega point?

I doubt it.

So if everything is in flux and not really there, but just so then how is it a conscious entity persists beyond bodily and egoic formations?

I don't know if there a provable answer to any of this. Perhaps something in the universe is conscious and transmutable.

WHO IS THAT?

This post has been edited by MudLotus: 21 October 2009 - 10:01 AM

[Lucky7Strikes]

MudLotus, on Oct 21 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

WHO IS THAT?

ME! .

I am that I am.

[Marblehead]

Lucky7Strikes, on Oct 21 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

ME! .

I am that I am.

That you are!

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Sorry for the slow reply... got distracted by something.

thuscomeone, on Oct 20 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

On non duality. In Buddhism, I hear the word thrown around a lot. Non duality is not considered merging with anything as far as I know. From what I have gathered, non duality in Buddhism refers to this threefold fact: because there are no things in what is and identification is based on things and identification is always dualistic aka based on "this" and "that", duality does not apply to "what is". Feel free to correct me on this.

Wonderful article you have there, thank you for sharing. I must say, well researched and great effort... I couldn't have done this in 8 months.

As for non-duality, I wrote some time back: But we must understand that the definitions of non-dualism are many, I can at least think of 5 to 10 different explanations and definitions right now.

The experience of no-self is non-dual, the nature of experience or anatta means that our experience is always by nature non-dual. By 'non-dual' I mean here that it is not split up into a subject perceiving or acting upon an object -- in the seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just sounds, no hearer. Actions happen without an actor.

So as a matter of fact, Bahiya Sutta and so on are not talking about something other than 3 characteristics -- it is still talking about the 3 characteristics with emphasis on Anatta.

Also as my friend who has experiential insight of non-duality, 'Longchen', wrote in one of his articles:

The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality

This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness.
More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials.
The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.
Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.
No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.
OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.
For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

thuscomeone, on Oct 21 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.
See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

No, non-duality and emptiness are distinct realisations, but complements each other. Both are necessary.

Non-duality of subject-object division makes you see clearly that there are no separate cognizer apart from perception. This is part of what anatta means.

We usually experience the world as if it is split into two: me, the perceiver and cognizer, and 'the world out there', existing separately from me.

We feel it in our being that there is an inner entity behind our heads that is looking outward at things. We have a sense of inner-outer division which we cannot bridge.

When you have an experiential realisation of non-duality, you realise that such an inner perceiver cannot be found. The observer is the observed! However even this statement is not perfect*. There is awareness, but awareness is not an inner perceiver, rather in Buddhism we teach that there is simply what is heard, what is sensed, smelled, touched, tasted, thought.

All these is what awareness is.

(*Thitatto: "(for instance Kenneth referred to Krishnamurti saying something like the observed and the observer is one)."

Kenneth Folk: Thitatto, I'm glad you picked up on this apparent inconsistency. Krishnamurti would have done better to say that "observing (the sense of observation) and the observed are one." Although we must admit that Krishnamurti's phrase is much more elegant, it has serious problems as there is no observer to be found. There is, however, the sense of observation, and this is what he meant by "observer." By saying that the observer and the observed are one, he was saying that the universe is "one without a second," or "not-two." But, more than making a philosophical statement, he was pointing to a particular situation (experence?) in which duality does not arise.

A related matter is the no-dog. The experience of "Self" described by the advaitists can be seen as both a means and an end. It's an end in that it is a refuge, a trans-personal perspective that is prior to the arising of a separate self, and therefore upstream from suffering. The no-dog knows no suffering. But in the no-dog, there is still a tenuous thread of delusion; the small personal self has been superseded by the universal and impersonal Self. So the no-dog is also a means; by dwelling as the no-dog "Self," you are just one tiny step away from the simplest thing, aka primordial awareness, which has no reference point, either personal or transpersonal. There is no self, big, small or otherwise, from this simplest of all perspectives. It knows Itself. There is no localized sense of knowing standing apart from what is known.There's just the entire phenomenological world, which is self-aware.

I'm sorry if this seems convoluted. It's not nearly so confusing in real life. But you can see why so many have failed so miserably to speak clearly about it; it's just really hard to talk about.)



So as the Buddha taught, and I quote an excerpt from Kalaka Sutta (also see Bahiya Sutta and a few other suttas of the like),

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

"When hearing...

"When sensing...

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

As Buddhist teacher Daniel Ingram says:

One teaching that comes out of the Theravada that can be helpful is that there are Three Ultimate Dharmas or ultimate aspects of reality: materiality (the sensations of the first five sense doors), mentality (all mental sensations) and Nirvana (though they would call it “Nibbana,” which is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit). In short, this is actually it, and “that” which is beyond this is also it. Notice that “awareness” is definitely not on this list. It might be conceptualized as being all three (from a True Self point of view), or quickly discarded as being a useless concept that solidifies a sense of a separate or localized “watcher” (from the no-self point of view).


So notice that in Buddhism, the Buddha never taught something called 'Awareness' or 'Consciousness' that is distinct from the six sensory consciousness. There is just whatever is sensed, felt, but there is no separate Awareness that is a separate and permanent perceiver of things. There is no 'I' behind the thought, sensation, smell, sight. There is just that. Self-cognizing phenomena. That itself is awareness. Everything is clearly perceived, as awareness, without a separate perceiver.

Awareness being manifestation, hence dependently originates and isn't a permanent, separate entity or metaphysical essence. In Buddhism there is no such thing as an Atman, we do not deny consciousness but we do not reify it into something ultimate, independent, permanent.

Makes sense?

Also see how Buddha abmonished the monk Sati who thought Consciousness is a concrete perceiver of things rather than manifestive cognizance that dependently originates: http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm (The Longer Discourse on the Destruction of Craving):

Quote

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

(continued in URL)

P.S. I feel you will appreciate Daniel Ingram's 'Mastering the Core Teachings of Buddha' which is available for free download and also sold in popular bookstores and amazon.com.

This is a very hardcore (not exactly for total beginners but it seems you have already had a grasp of the basics) practice-oriented work by someone who knows and experiences what he's talking about, who is clearly enlightened. There's also a lot of instructions about the three characteristics and taught in a way of immense practical value.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 21 October 2009 - 11:41 AM

[drewhempel]

Personally I would stick with the Lama Yeshe quote and ignore all the people on this website who are self-proclaimed Buddhism experts waiting to strike you down as "nice start kid, keep at it!" Those kind of patronizing comments do nothing to help you but only put you down to feed their egos! Don't let them do that B.S. cult-trip on you! haha.

Here's a new post on various interpretations of Buddhism by a monk in Burma you might find interesting -- just for the record the monk emailed me this yesterday or the day before in regards to me seeking ordination. But I still turned down the offer ---

http://bhantedogen.b...-teachings.html

thuscomeone, on Oct 20 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

Let me start this off with a quote:

"Buddha’s teachings are so simple and straightforward. If you find them complicated, it is only because you have made them so. You may think, “I have a Ph.D. and have amassed all this knowledge, yet I still can’t figure out how to begin practicing Dharma.” The remedy is to take a good look at your own mind.
-Lama Thubten Yeshe, in "Wisdom Energy"

Just putting that there because I love it.

Anyway, I see a lot of confusion about Buddhism on this board. People seem to be in the middle regarding it. I have been learning the dharma for about 8 months now. I have dedicated the majority of my time to it. I feel that this has been extremely beneficial. I have no teacher or lineage. I have been studying on my own, looking into my own mind. In this topic, I hope to clear up some major points of Buddhism that I have come to learn about in my inquiry. Perhaps it will be helpful to the bums here.

First of all, I will start with the three characteristics. Impermanence, suffering and not self. Not self could also be called dependent origination. Then dependent origination + impermanence = emptiness. But I feel that anyone seriously interested in gaining insights into what Buddha was talking about should investigate these three characteristics.

First, impermanence. Now, it is safe to say that there is not a single phenomena or thing that is not changing and decaying. Our consciousness (sensations, thoughts, etc.) is always changing, our bodies is always changing. All environmental phenomena are always changing. Even stars and the sun itself are constantly decaying. If we truly investigate, we can see this is true. Nothing has any stability. Now, if things truly existed - ourselves, our minds and all other things, they would have to have some sort of identity. Otherwise, what is it that is existing?
Identity (or essence) requires stability. If all things are unstable, nothing can possibly have any identity and thus this is one reason why there are no actual existent things.

Another reason why there are no actual existent things that is due to impermanence is that, because things are impermanent, "things" (actual existents) are completely unfindable. Nothing endures. There is no constant anything. Actual existents must be constants. Thus one cannot find any constants in impermanent phenomena and thus there is no truly existent anything. This may be just a different way of stating the previous point but it helps to see things from as many perspectives as possible.

Now, If there are no "things" (real, actual existents) then there can also be no absence of those things (non existence). Existence and non existence require things to be existent and non existent. No things = no existents, no non existents, no both, no neither. Therefore, we can say that things are beyond the four extremes of existence. This also serves as the middle way which avoids eternalism and nihilism. This is also one proof of non inherent existence (non true existence) or emptiness or not self.

Second, not self. I am relating not self here with dependent origination/arising.
Just as impermanence is a natural way that all things are, so is dependent origination/arising. There is no thing that is not dependent on something else. There is no thing that does not arise dependently through causes and conditions. if we examine our reality, we can see this very easily. Our consciousness/mind arises dependently on endless previous moments of mind and on external phenomena. Consciousness always arises dependently. All matter also always arises dependently from causes and conditions. Even space itself is dependently arisen. It, as a whole, is dependent on all it's parts - north, south, east and west and it's parts are all dependent on other parts - east depends on west, south depends on north, etc. So, in the case of space, neither the parts nor the whole have independent existence. If things truly existed, they would be independent. A "thing" is, by definition, independent. This is because a thing is a particular. As such, it is separate and independent of all other things. It has unique own being, own self, own essence/identity, own nature. Thus whatever is dependent on other things is not a real actual existent thing. This is another proof of non inherent existence.

Also, if consciousness, all forms of matter and all things truly existed, they would not need to arise (come into being) at all. This is because existent things do not need to arise - they exist. To say that an existent thing arises through causes and conditions is absurd. Why would an existent thing need to arise/to come about through causes? It exists. To say that it would need to would be to allow for absurd, pointless production. Existents do not need/are not dependent on causes to give rise to them. Therefore whatever arises is not inherently/truly existent. Another way to say it that is used frequently is that whatever arises, in truth, does not arise in the sense that it is not a true existent - an actual, real thing.

So for reasons of impermanence and dependence, everything there is is non inherently existent. This means all things are beyond the four extremes of existence - not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. Another way to say this is that there are no "things." This is also, as stated before, the middle way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

In Buddhism it is always said that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form." Sometimes the word appearance is used instead of form. Appearance is a better word, I feel, because it fits better with the non solidity of things after one has analyzed them and found them to be not truly existent. So, after we see that form is emptiness, form or appearance does not vanish. At this point, some think that emptiness is completely other than form. It is strangely easy to think this. Actually emptiness is and always has been none other than appearance (and awareness).

This is because there is no emptiness apart from impermanent and dependently arisen appearances and there are no impermanent and dependently arisen appearances apart from emptiness. Appearances and awareness arise dependently and are impermanent because they are empty (not truly existent). And they are empty because they arise dependently and are impermanent. If appearances and awareness were not empty, they would never change and would not need to arise. It is their emptiness nature that allows appearances and awareness to change and arise dependently. Emptiness makes all things possible. Without emptiness, one could never study the dharma and achieve liberation or learn about the true nature of things. Change would be impossible. The consequences of a universe where things are truly existent are absurd. Nothing could happen, nothing could change and nothing could interact. There would just be floating static entities in space. It is truly crazy to think about the ridiculous logical consequences of the beliefs of a majority of people in this world.

Thus appearance and awareness, since they are impermanent and dependently arisen and emptiness is not apart from impermanence and dependent arising, are emptiness itself. But one must remember that emptiness is not a thing, an actual existent. It is the true quality of phenomena. Therefore, it IS phenomena.

Now after seeing that emptiness, awareness and appearances are inseperable, it dawns that appearances and awareness are complete purity. Since they are naturally empty, they are naturally free from the main cause of our suffering - notions of true existence (and really, from all forms of identification).

Therefore, if we just let things be, everything is already liberated and naturally pure. Goodness (the absence of suffering) pervades everywhere. The absence of suffering is in the true nature of things themselves. Fear is pure, anger is pure, stress is pure. All mental states, all thoughts, all phenomena are already pure and infused with goodness. We could say that goodness, or even love, is the natural state of all creation, all that is.

One thing that also needs to be emphasized I think as well is that, since permanence and independence cannot be established then impermanence, dependence and emptiness should not be reified conceptually either. For impermanence depends upon permanence and dependence depends upon independence. Without one half, the other cannot stand/be on it's own and thus collapses. Therefore because of dependence (emptiness), impermanence, dependence and emptiness should not be asserted/reified ultimately either. So in the end, neither permanence, independence, non emptiness or impermanence, dependence and emptiness should be reified. Perhaps this is the meaning of the emptiness of emptiness. The dependence of dependence. If any seasoned Buddhists could perhaps correct me here, I would be grateful

This brings us to the third and final characteristic - suffering. We suffer mainly because of our attachment to identification or our attachment to true existence. From identification, there arises division - "this" and "that." From this we compare this and that and we assert that one is superior and one is inferior or one is better or worse. Thus one thinks that he/she is not good enough. They struggle, strive to be something, to become something that they are told they should be that is superior to what they already are. From this constant comparison, division and desire to become arises all conflict - fear, constant feelings of being incomplete, anger, hate, hurt, sorrow. This is a simple explanation but if one looks into it and traces psychological suffering back to it's origin, it will almost always end up back at attachment to identification. Thus the root of suffering can basically be linked back to our attachment to identification or, to say it another way, our attachment to things as truly existent. When we truly see emptiness, we cut suffering at it's root. Since there are no things in "what is", identification, since it is based on "things" or assertion of things/particulars, does not represent at all "what is."

Notes

On the two truths. The two truths are usually talked about in Buddhism. I personally do not care for the device. In the end, in what really matters, there are no two levels of truth anyway. There is just this one truth of combined emptiness, appearance and awareness.

On non duality. In Buddhism, I hear the word thrown around a lot. Non duality is not considered merging with anything as far as I know. From what I have gathered, non duality in Buddhism refers to this threefold fact: because there are no things in what is and identification is based on things and identification is always dualistic aka based on "this" and "that", duality does not apply to "what is". Feel free to correct me on this.

On "awareness." In my lurking this forum, I have come across one user Xabir2005 (?) who seems to always say that awareness and phenomena are inseperable. Or "awareness is the manifestation", "there is nothing but awareness", etc. I have no idea what this means to be honest. Perhaps he means that awareness and phenomena are inseparable in the sense that they both have the same characteristics (impermanent, empty, dependent). Emptiness, as far as I know, does not take away the obvious natural diversity of things. Mind and external phenomena are not "one" in the same after one realizes emptiness. They are still distinct. Appearances and awareness are obviously diverse and distinct. Just like my hand is not a tree and a tree is not my hand. It always gives me the idea that he is reifying some sort of super awareness which everything "is." Well anyway Xabir, if you read this let me know what's up. Maybe you have some insight that I have not stumbled upon.

On Rebirth and Karma. This is the basic reasoning I have come up with for rebirth. Consciousness can not possibly end after death. To say it could, would be to say it could be non existent. But, since consciousness has never been truly existent, it can never be non existent. Again, since there are no "things" to begin with, there can be no absence of those things. Therefore, consciousness cannot just end and become non existent at death. It must go on infinitely, constantly changing and arising dependently.

I have a very hard time understanding karma and rebirth (karma moreso) and the specifics of how they work. For instance, does an enlightened being have karma? Why/how is karma just intentional action? Why doesn't non intentional action leave seeds as well? Well I would appreciate if perhaps the Buddhists on this forum could help me get a clear, concise and correct understanding of rebirth and karma, the specifics of each and how they work together and are interrelated...

[xabir2005]

MudLotus, on Oct 21 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

Hmmm, maybe it is important to acknowledge that discernment is always an important part of any advanced practice, is it not?

If in your state you start to lose referentiality such as to what is Tree or You and what is Mind or Observing Mind, does that become evidentiary proof that you are empty, have experienced emptiness or that things are inherently empty?

Are these still conceptions?

Is not inquiry always dependent on some degree of witnessing mind?

So WHO is the perceiver of these THINGS or NON-THINGS?

If it is nobody, is that a NOBODY with any singularity of mind at all?

I'd say so.

And if that witnessing mind, the discernment to purify consciousness and transcend to higher states is actively engaged, will it dissolve upon reaching some Omega point?

I doubt it.

So if everything is in flux and not really there, but just so then how is it a conscious entity persists beyond bodily and egoic formations?

I don't know if there a provable answer to any of this. Perhaps something in the universe is conscious and transmutable.

WHO IS THAT?

I have to say... the Witnessing Mind or the Eternal Witness is not yet the realisation of non-duality.

Before the true experience of non-duality, one may come upon a state of a non-judgmental presence that is witnessing the thoughts. This is not the stage of non-dual realisation yet.

At non-dual, there is no subject-object division. This means that no one is acting upon actions. Many people talk about non-duality but is really not understanding the subject clearly. Non-duality does not postulate a true self... that is why in Buddhism there is the teaching of no-self. True-self is most probably at the stage of a 'witnessing self'.

The tricky part of this journey is that desire can be very subtle. For example, the desire for non-duality is still a desire and will prevent the actual experience of it. Wanting to be desireless is also a desire. Desirelessness and thus non-dualty can only be spontaneous without the 'sense of self' interfering or pretending to be a witness.

.......

'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.

However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.


Also see: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

[thuscomeone]

alright Xabir, I think I may have gotten this non duality thing down. Ok, so we can say that all there really is is this flow. And consciousness/awareness is just another part of the flow (?). It is just another happening or manifestation of this flow. In this sense, awareness and phenomena are not seperate. As everything, awareness and phenomena, is just the flow there can be no separation between observer and observed. They are both the same flow that is all there is. I don't really know how to address what I'm trying to get across accurately. It seems hard to express it...

But that also couldn't mean that there is no [i]distinction[i] or obvious diversity/difference of awareness and phenomena. Just that they are inseparable in the sense that they are part of the same process/flow...

This post has been edited by thuscomeone: 21 October 2009 - 11:34 AM