Sariras/relics & is other religions' enlightenment the same?

• Isis

  10 Jul 09, 16:24

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Kalama Sutta is taught for a group of non-Buddhist to have discernment and choose the correct teaching. If upon analysis and reflection, that teaching is blameless, leads to something good, is praised by the wise, etc, then one should accept it and live up to it. It is not saying not to have faith, but have faith only after analysis and reflection, etc.

  Once you picked Buddhism as your path, then to have full faith in the triple gem's ability to lead one to enlightenment is important, and having full faith in Buddha, we will need to practice and experience it ourselves. Then, faith turns into conviction born of direct experience. However without first having faith and taking Buddha's words seriously, we will never be able to experience what the Buddha taught.

  heh... i don't think the kalama sutta is taught for only non-buddhist. It is taught to all.

  There are different level and kinds of faith: Blind faith, intelligence faith and the faith that comes with understanding and realization.

   

• Isis

  10 Jul 09, 16:41

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  I have discussed the issue of pratyekabuddha in one of my previous post

  see

  06 Jul `09, 7:51PM

  
  

  and

  
  

  07 Jul `09, 9:17PM

  
  

   

  The pratyekaBuddha had perfect their paramitas over many lifetime and could be Buddhist in their many past lives. However, In there very lifetime, they are awakened to the truth despite there is no existing buddhism in there very lifetime.Now how do they have the right view then since in there lifetime there is no Buddha's teaching? 

  I think nature of reality can be penetrated when you have the right cause and condition. 

  It is very very rare to have relics from other religion. Most of the religion which i know of does not taught such a systematic ways like the noble eightfold path, 5 factors of awakening etc. You also need to cultivate... have sila, samadhi and wisdom etc. right?

   

  Quoted by Emanrohe

  What you say is true, knowing another and knowing oneself is important.
  However, having a clear discernemnt of ourselves and the true nature of things in this world is more important. I believe that Right View can only be established through practice and insights gained. Words only point the way...most of the time, they miss the point!

  Quote by AEN

  Actually, no. Without learning the Buddha's teachings on the right view of no-self and dependent origination, one can never hope to gain right view no matter how hard one practices. One will end up in the Advaita Vedanta sort of experience. There will be a desync of view and experience. And any transcendental experience will only end up strengthening the karmic propensity and bond of a Self.

  Right View is meant to be established through learning the teachings. I will post something on that in the next post.

  BTW, the day before Buddha attained enlightenment, he remembered a 'long forgotten truth' from his past lives. What is it? Dependent origination. Contemplating thus, he attained awakening.

  I think both of you have a common ground. The Dharma teaching serves as pointer, only if one really knows how to read their heart / insight from meditation truly understand the dharma.

• An Eternal Now

  11 Jul 09, 09:38

  Here's a good article:

  
  

  A Look at the Kalama Sutta

  by

  Bhikkhu Bodhi

  © 1998–2009

  
  

  In this issue of the newsletter we have combined the feature essay with the "Sutta Study" column as we take a fresh look at an often quoted discourse of the Buddha, the Kalama Sutta. The discourse — found in translation in Wheel No. 8 — has been described as "the Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry," and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

  But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself — or to those to whom one is preaching? Let us take as careful a look at the Kalama Sutta as the limited space allotted to this essay will allow, remembering that in order to understand the Buddha's utterances correctly it is essential to take account of his own intentions in making them.

  The passage that has been cited so often runs as follows: "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias toward a notion pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them... When you yourselves know: 'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

  Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context — with a particular audience and situation in view — and thus must be understood in relation to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds.

  The Buddha begins by assuring the Kalamas that under such circumstances it is proper for them to doubt, an assurance which encourages free inquiry. He next speaks the passage quoted above, advising the Kalamas to abandon those things they know for themselves to be bad and to undertake those things they know for themselves to be good. This advice can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped, and we can thus assume that the Buddha regarded the Kalamas as people of refined moral sensitivity. In any case he did not leave them wholly to their own resources, but by questioning them led them to see that greed, hate and delusion, being conducive to harm and suffering for oneself and others, are to be abandoned, and their opposites, being beneficial to all, are to be developed.

  The Buddha next explains that a "noble disciple, devoid of covetousness and ill will, undeluded" dwells pervading the world with boundless loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity. Thus purified of hate and malice, he enjoys here and now four "solaces": If there is an afterlife and kammic result, then he will undergo a pleasant rebirth, while if there is none he still lives happily here and now; if evil results befall an evil-doer, then no evil will befall him, and if evil results do not befall an evil-doer, then he is purified anyway. With this the Kalamas express their appreciation of the Buddha's discourse and go for refuge to the Triple Gem.

  Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

  Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality.

  Nevertheless, after advising the Kalamas not to rely upon established tradition, abstract reasoning, and charismatic gurus, the Buddha proposes to them a teaching that is immediately verifiable and capable of laying a firm foundation for a life of moral discipline and mental purification. He shows that whether or not there be another life after death, a life of moral restraint and of love and compassion for all beings brings its own intrinsic rewards here and now, a happiness and sense of inward security far superior to the fragile pleasures that can be won by violating moral principles and indulging the mind's desires. For those who are not concerned to look further, who are not prepared to adopt any convictions about a future life and worlds beyond the present one, such a teaching will ensure their present welfare and their safe passage to a pleasant rebirth — provided they do not fall into the wrong view of denying an afterlife and kammic causation.

  However, for those whose vision is capable of widening to encompass the broader horizons of our existence, this teaching given to the Kalamas points beyond its immediate implications to the very core of the Dhamma. For the three states brought forth for examination by the Buddha — greed, hate and delusion — are not merely grounds of wrong conduct or moral stains upon the mind. Within his teaching's own framework they are the root defilements — the primary causes of all bondage and suffering — and the entire practice of the Dhamma can be viewed as the task of eradicating these evil roots by developing to perfection their antidotes — dispassion, kindness and wisdom.

  Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when they lie beyond one's own capacity for verification. This, in fact, marks the acquisition of right view, in its preliminary role as the forerunner of the entire Noble Eightfold Path.

  Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been put into brackets.

  What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering.

• Emanrohe

  11 Jul 09, 17:49

  Most countries now have access to Dharma centers.

   

  Agreed! But not all...From what I know and what my friends tell me, the proliferation of internet use is not so good even in North Korea and Myanmar, not to mention some parts of Africa or the the deserts or forests.

   

  Right View is meant to be established through learning the teachings. I will post something on that in the next post.

   

  From your posts, I start to understand what you mean by Right View. Correct me if I am wrong, what you mean is that a person should have an idea of what the right view is before cultivation. If not he may be misled and never finally get the realizations of Right View. From where I come from, ideas are de-emphasized as they make something out of nothing. Or rather, they are not the thing itself, so when I talk of Right View, I always mean the realization of Right View. I would not call a person who has only a theoretical idea of the Right View as having the Right View.

   

  I do agree with what thusness says about practive and Right View.

  
  Further on, I think there is a difference to what we have been taught. In what I have been taught ,people who have cultivated to have the knowledges, non-duality, emptiness etc, they easily gain back these knowledges. For example, the re-incarnated Lamas or Tulkus. I do not know if they correspond to the 8^th Bhumi Bodhisattvas or not. But being enlightened by birth is unheard of. Even the high incarnations like the Dalai Lamas do not have such ability.

   

  Regarding the 6^th Patriarch’s poem, you miss the point. The words “one should be introduced to it and abide as it”, are in direct contrast with what is proclaimed in the Diamond sutra about non-abiding anywhere. Hmm…you mean to say that the 6 Patriarch’s poem lacks non-duality? Yes it seems that’s true. However, it was a response to Shen Xiu’s poem. Nevertheless, there is still a fundamental problem with what the 6^th Patriarch poem. Try to find it!
  

   

  If upon analysis and reflection, that teaching is blameless, leads to something good, is praised by the wise, etc, then one should accept it and live up to it. It is not saying not to have faith, but have faith only after analysis and reflection, etc.

  Once you picked Buddhism as your path, then to have full faith in the triple gem's ability to lead one to enlightenment is important, and having full faith in Buddha, we will need to practice and experience it ourselves. Then, faith turns into conviction born of direct experience. However without first having faith and taking Buddha's words seriously, we will never be able to experience what the Buddha taught.

   

  Yea, faith is important. Again it is a problem with dialectics. When you say “full faith”, I would think you mean ‘conviction’. As said by our friend Isis, I think there are many kinds of faiths. I think we differ on how much faith is needed initially, but we agree on that faith is needed. As what you said, I also think constant reflection on the teaching is necessary.

   

  You know, sometimes with the Kalama Sutta, many religions can be established as correct because they all have a believable complete explanation or story of this world. Like many Christians who feel the presence of God, that is an undeniable experience. Some speak tongues. Without the meditative ability to see the heart bases and minds of oneself, other people and other kinds of beings, we can’t say for sure too what these speaking in tongues is all about. That’s why I always think it is very important to engage in meditation, cultivate concentration and see for ourselves, then wisdom, conviction ias you say, is gained. I feel that should be the way to understand the Buddha’s teachings. When you see clearly by yourself in meditation, how can that be false? If your concentration is good enough, you can even see everyone of your own 'thought moments', the smallest particles on this earth, their properties etc. That is what I really mean by investigation.
  

   

  In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article, he is clarifying that one should not take the article to mean that faith is not needed for the practice of Buddhism, which I agree, some faith is necessary, if not one would not start on the path in the first place. However, he also points out that the sutra has to be contextualized, this I agree too, ina a way. However, from reasons mentioned above, I still believe that one should not just fully believe everything wholesale. Fully believing should only come with investigation, so one must first cultivate the tools for investigation. Then investigate thoroughly. Some people proclaim things to be false, even before they have the right investigation tools. Some others do not investigate thoroughly enough. With regards to the things which are said that cannot be verified, most of the time, they are not important to the ultimate goal. So whether we believe it or not does not really matter! :)

   

  Metta_(|)_

   

• An Eternal Now

  12 Jul 09, 01:11

  Agreed! But not all...From what I know and what my friends tell me, the proliferation of internet use is not so good even in North Korea and Myanmar, not to mention some parts of Africa or the the deserts or forests.

  Myanmar, like neighbouring Thailand is a place where 9 out of 10 people are Buddhist. It is also home to many great arhats, like Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, and countless other Sayadaws.

  North Korea also have a heavy Buddhist backgrund, though I'm not to what extent is the religious supression in the country.

  Because spirituality is so subtle, especially the truths of dependent origination and emptiness, it is impossible to realise it by yourself unless you are =>8th Bhumi Bodhisattva. Even if one has realised it, it will be exceedingly difficult to preach such a teaching and a path.

  Given the prevalance of mass medias (books, internet, etc), if there were a teaching or religion that teaches the same things as Buddha, I would probably have known it by now, or at least others would, and it would be made known. So far from what I've studied on non-Buddhist contemplative teachings, I've never found a single religion comparable to Buddhism.

  There are quite a number of practitioners who attained realisations outside the circles of religions (people like Eckhart Tolle and many others), sometimes classified as 'neo-advaitins' in contrast to 'traditional advaitins', but even they have only realised the I AM or at most non-dual. (However, that doesn't mean I do not find some of their books quite helpful and recommendable)

  As both Thusness and Longchen have attested, if they had not known Buddhism, they would have been stucked at the I AM or non-dual levels and never have realised no-self or emptiness

  No matter how hard they practice, attempting to let go of everything, or feeling the nondual awareness, one can never hope to attain the insight of non-inherency without the right views, teaching of anatta and emptiness, taught by Buddha. It is the right antidote.

  I will not insist that non-Buddhist cannot be realised, but that so far, of the hundreds of supposedly enlightened people I've read, only those from Buddhism have realised Emptiness.

  The Buddha will not have said that only those from his monastic and lay community were there are recluses, casually. The Buddha doesn't say things casually or out of arrogance. He said it because it is exceedingly rare and difficult to realise the subtle and profound truth of dependent origination and emptiness, and having walked many different contemplative paths and met different external cultivators throughout India (as you know he travelled the whole of India in his life), he has never met one who has attained the noble Arya fruitions.

  If you look into ancient teachings, you will probably not find an example of someone (except stories of pratyekabuddhas from long ancient past before Buddha) who lives within or after Shakyamuni Buddha's life, who attained enlightenment before encountering the dharma teachings.

   

  From your posts, I start to understand what you mean by Right View. Correct me if I am wrong, what you mean is that a person should have an idea of what the right view is before cultivation. If not he may be misled and never finally get the realizations of Right View. From where I come from, ideas are de-emphasized as they make something out of nothing. Or rather, they are not the thing itself, so when I talk of Right View, I always mean the realization of Right View. I would not call a person who has only a theoretical idea of the Right View as having the Right View.

  In the beginning it is important to establish right views theoretically. It would be impossible to be introduced to the right view immediately by direct experience, it would take time, often decades. Yet without at least conceptual right view, it would be impossible to give rise to the direct experience of emptiness.

  In Buddhism it is taught that there are two kinds of right views:

  1. View with taints: this view is mundane. Having this type of view will bring merit and will support the favourable existence of the sentient being in the realm of samsara.
  2. View without taints: this view is supramundane. It is a factor of the path and will lead the holder of this view toward self-awakening and liberation from the realm of samsara.
     

  As you can guess, view with taints include the understanding of what is wholesome and unwholesome, it has to do with teachings of morality, and without such right views a person would ignorantly perform misdeeds and accumulate bad karma resulting in unwholesome rebirths. Part of it is having the right view of the existence of rebirth, past and future lives, other realms of existence, the existence of karma. It ensures that the practitioner cultivates good karma which enables him the favourable conditions to continue his dharma practice in future lifetimes even if he may not have attained liberation in this lifetime.

  View without taints means the understanding of dependent origination, the teaching of emptiness, the teaching of the 3 dharma seals, 4 noble truths, and so on. Strictly speaking, only enlightened beings are holders of 'view without taint', but we are required to start cultivating it if we are to attain liberation. By learning and following these teachings, one can gain awakening. Not having right understanding of dependent origination, emptiness, anatta, one can never hope to gain Buddha's wisdom. As Bhikkhu Bodhi states: "The cultivation of right view of the higher level would firmly set one on the correct path and be the stepping stone to the practice of the other seven factors of the noble eightfold path which would ultimately result in the attainment of Nibbana."

  Also an important point is that cultivating right view is intimately related to mindfulness practice, the right view and practice is inseparable, it is not just meant as a mental concept but something we should contemplate by experience. (mentioned that later on)

  Source:

  �Therein, monks, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one's right view.
  
  �And what, monks, is wrong view? There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. This is wrong view.
  
  �And what, monks, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
  
  �And what monks, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment? There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment.
  
  �And what, monks, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
  
  �One makes an effort to abandon wrong view and to enter upon right view: this is one right effort. Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right view, that is right view, right effort, and right mindfulness. � (MN 117: 4-9, see Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha, pp. 934-935)

  Next...

  There are two kinds of bonds:

  1. The bond of Subject-Object duality: This bond prevents us from the direct experience of anything. It is the sense of a separate self, that is "in here" experiencing something "out there". When hearing the music, it feels that I am an inner experiencer and the music is outside. When non-dual reality is realised, there is no inner-outer division, no me in here and music out there. Just the ISness of the music. You don't hear the music, the music hears. You don't see the scenery, the scenery sees. This is the beginning of seeing through the sense of a separate self, yet there can still be strong grasping on an ultimate unchanging non-dual Self/Absolute.
     
  2. The bond of Inherency: There are two levels to the bond of inherency: the bond of seeing self as inherent, and the bond of seeing dharmas as inherent. Insight into anatta/no-self removes the self-bond, insight into dependent origination of all dharmas removes the bond of seeing dharmas as inherent. To remove the bond of non-inherency, apart from practicing naked awareness we need to establish right views.
     

  If you practice hard, just sensing awareness all and everywhere, such that when you experience the TONGGG of the bell, the chirp of the bird, or any sight, the trees, the floor, the sensation on feet, you realise that there is no seer apart from that sensation. There is just THAT, the TONGGG, the floor, the tree, just the pure existence of IT without any separate observer. You realise that this is the nature of awareness, there never was a subject-object split. Letting go, and practicing naked awareness and sensing can lead to this experience and realisation. Now, I am not underestimating this experience, because it is very crucial and a most precious experience. It will remove the bond of the subject-object split. Without this experience, insight, of the non-dual nature of awareness, we can never properly understand no-self and emptiness. But we must never underestimate the importance of right views, many people think just practice awareness and realise non-dual is enough. (And many people have not even realised non-dual, just the I AM/Eternal Witness aspect) It is not enough in fact, to remove that bond of inherency.

  Yet, without the right view, there will still be grasping even though non-dual awareness is experienced -- that is, even though non-dual awareness is felt vividly, the bond of seeing inherently will manifest and solidify awareness into an ontological essence, something permanent and unchanging. It will manifest as a clinging to something inherent as  ‘hereness’, ‘nowness’, ‘selfness’. Awareness is still treated as a Subject, an ultimate Self, even though now that Self is seen as being in union with everything - a mirror that is in union with all its reflections. Yet there is still a subtle clinging to the mirror as an unchanging Subject, essence. Unable to see through inherency, there will be a strong tendency to sink back to, or reconfirm a Source, a Self, a background, a substratum -- which is seeing awareness as something permanent and inherent, rather than experiencing it as the mere transience of phenomenality in full.

  When a practitioner is unable to see through the bond of inherency, no matter how hard he practices to experience awareness nakedly, he will be unknowingly and subtly reinforcing the bond by sinking back to a Source, a background, a Self. Without the right view of Anatta and Emptiness, non-dual luminosity can be experienced clearly but there will be a tendency to reify that experience. One will still be unable to see fully that 'Manifestation is the Source' and there is nothing to choose, no Source to fall back on, only the transience itself is Buddha-Nature (Dogen: Impermanence is Buddha-Nature).

  That is why the right view of D.O. and the three dharma seals are taught. Being mindful of the three seals, being mindful (i.e. not forgetting, remembering) of impermanence, suffering and no-self in direct experience, one is able to dissolve any trace of grasping onto a permanent self.

  If one were to just practice naked awareness without being mindful of the 3 seals, it will be insufficient to dissolve the bond of inherency. If we are not taught the right view, the three dharma seals, no-self, emptiness, the teaching of dependent origination, we will not even begin looking into that direction. Instead, one will be content with the unchanging non-dual Self or Brahman. Non Dual Awareness feels absolute and the practitioner will not look further, because you feel nothing wrong, and non-dual awareness appears final. You will not even realise that grasping onto an essence is a wrong view. The wrong view of inherency is subtle and strong, and it is a tendency that will keep on surfacing and distorting our experience. Without the Right View as an antidote, there will be no cure. Right View is also like a compass, without it no matter how hard you peddle the boat (i.e. practice) you'll never be able to reach the other shore -- because you're not even going the correct direction.

  Also, as Buddha stated in the earlier quote:

  �One makes an effort to abandon wrong view and to enter upon right view: this is one right effort. Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right view, that is right view, right effort, and right mindfulness.

   

  This means that right view, right effort, right mindfulness is interrelated: without right view there cannot be right mindfulness.

  And this is what Vipassana practice is all about: experiencing the 3 characteristics in direct naked awareness in order to give rise to insights.

  It should be noted that mindfulness practice in Vipassana has two aspects: bare attention, and reminding oneself of the 3 dharma seals. Experiencing bare attention, witnessing awareness, or even nondual awareness does not mean we are mindful of the 3 seals, and the latter is very important to give rise to insight of anatta and emptiness:

  From a conversation with Thusness last year:

  (8:44 PM) Thusness:    mindfulness has several characteristics
  (8:44 PM) Thusness:    in which bare attention or being naked and non-conceptual awareness is important
  (8:45 PM) Me:    icic..
  (8:45 PM) Thusness:    2nd is it must remind  (not recollect)
  (8:45 PM) Thusness:    remind of what?
  (8:45 PM) Me:    present moment? or what you are doing?
  (8:46 PM) Me:    like breathing meditation then remind of that
  (8:46 PM) Thusness:    no
  (8:46 PM) Thusness:    what is there to remind
  (8:46 PM) Thusness:    when u r bare in attention, u r in the present
  (8:46 PM) Me:    ya the reminding serves its purpose only when one becomes lost in thoughts, i tink
  (8:46 PM) Me:    hmm
  (8:47 PM) Me:    so u're saying reminding = being bare in attention?
  (8:47 PM) Thusness:    told u that is in all practices
  (8:47 PM) Thusness:    nothing to talk about.
  (8:47 PM) Me:    icic..
  (8:47 PM) Thusness:    remind u constantly of the dharma seals.
  (8:47 PM) Me:    oic..
  (8:47 PM) Thusness:    when u r bare in attention, does it mean that u know the dharma seals?
  (8:48 PM) Thusness:    when u r in non-dual, does it mean that u know the 3 characteristics?
  (8:48 PM) Me:    i thinks perceiving 3 characteristics is also a matter of clarity?
  (8:48 PM) Thusness:    all experiences are distorted due to igorance and propensities.
  (8:49 PM) Thusness:    for u, u say u r Eternal Witness as if u r constant and everything flow even now.
  (8:49 PM) Thusness:    Even after reading so much and countless conversation with me.
  (8:49 PM) Thusness:    so isn't it not clear yet?
  (8:49 PM) Me:    oic
  (8:50 PM) Me:    so being bare in attention doesnt mean one perceives the 3 characteristics
  (8:50 PM) Me:    bcos of propensities?
  (8:50 PM) Thusness:    even now...even after years of reading and summarizing and disscussions?
  (8:50 PM) Thusness:    yes
  (8:50 PM) Thusness:    we do not know
  (8:50 PM) Thusness:    therefore we need to remind ourselves of the seals.
  (8:50 PM) Me:    oic..
  (8:50 PM) Thusness:    why?
  (8:51 PM) Thusness:    because insight and wisdom have not arisen.
  (8:51 PM) Me:    icic..
  (8:51 PM) Thusness:    therefore u practice mindfulness

  ......

  Going back to what I mentioned previously about sinking back to a source... When you realise No-Self, you realise that there is not even that ultimate Subject, or Mirror to be in union with manifestation or reflections. There is just vivid self-mirroring reflections, no union. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. It is no longer Self or Awareness being in union with phenomenon, but that an Agent, an inherent Self or Brahman cannot be found.

  As Ch'an Master Sheng-yen states:

  What is reflected by a mirror is outside the mirror. If a person is in a mirror-like state, everything that is reflected is on the outside. For such a person, there is no self involved. What he sees and feels is only the existence of phenomena -- when there is no self, there is no experience of discrimination, of liking or disliking.
  
  This is not the ultimate state, because if you have nothing but awareness of the environment and there is no self apparent, there must still be a self to be aware of the environment. Someone who is in this state is certainly in a unified state, because there seems to be no self and only the environment seems to exist. This is called the state of "one mind," but still it is not Ch'an. There must be "no mind' if it is to be Ch'an.
  
  A true Ch'an state should not be compared to an all-reflecting mirror. All things exists without the mirror. In this state everything is seen very clearly, but there is no concept of outside or inside, existing or not existing, having or not having.

   

  At Thusness Stage 5, one is thorough on the three aspects of No-Self: no subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. The insight of no subject/object division is not the same as the insight into the absence of an agent or an inherent self. 'Self' is no longer seen as an ultimate inherent Brahman or Subject, no more seen as an ontological essence, rather there is only the process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing inherent, ontological or having an essence. An analogy given by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh would be this:
  

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

  When no-self is realised, there is no 'I am', no Brahman, there is only becoming, the process of 5 skandhas, without any entity anywhere. Vivid non-dual awareness/presence isn't denied, only that nothing inherent can be located/found anywhere.

  The further insight into dependent origination will make you realise that awareness isn't inherent, it's dependently originated, yet uncaused and unconditioned. This may sound contradictory but it is not.

  As Zen teacher David Loy explained:

  *...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself,
  because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...

  
  *...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe...

  
  If we are able to dissolve this latent tendency with the right view of dependent origination, we will experience Aliveness Presence in new light. Aliveness Presence will turn spontaneous, centerless and dynamic; we will be able to directly intuitive Presence as intimately interconnected that arises whenever condition is without the need for a point of origin. We will be free from all sorts of ‘inherent tendencies of grasping’ that manifest as ‘hereness’, ‘nowness’, ‘selfness’ and thoroughly dissolve the constant need to reconfirm this ‘witness’ presence and the urge to fall back to a source.

  Aliveness Presence is not experienced as a Pure Source as itself and of itself but as this arising thought, this passing sound…as whatever arises.

  When D.O. and Emptiness is realised in real-time, all traces of clinging to the 'Brahman', the Absolute, disappears.

  If practitioners that have direct realization of the ‘Self’ can have similar sort of intensity in both realization and experience of their ‘Emptiness’ nature (as they have in ‘Self’), they will appreciate the beauty and find delight in seeing our nature as dependently originated. For what that dependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and does not cease.

  One will be able to experience the transience, the relative, as the unconditioned itself. There will be no more absolute-relative dichotomy. (related: Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience)

• An Eternal Now

  12 Jul 09, 01:12

  (continued)

  There's an important point in the article Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience -- Emptiness is actually a viewless view. Right View of D.O. leads to the wisdom of all phenomena as mere illusion-like appearances, like mirage, sky flowers, water paintinings, vivid appearance yet not 'there'/inherent/existing. Free from all extremes. Just like the analogy of the red flower and the dog in the first page, there's nothing inherent to the vivid appearance of red flower. It is not exactly a view that we cling to, rather it is a wisdom that flows into all our experience and enables us to see the illusion-like nature of appearances. It is also the antidote that dissolves Every false view we cherish (eternalistic, nihilistic, or self/things as existing, non-existence, both existing and non-existence, neither existing nor non existing, etc etc), and leaving nothing in the end. Not even a 'view of Emptiness' is held. It is just a raft, an antidote.

  Buddha said:

  "Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?"

  - Phena Sutta

   

  As Lama Namdrol from E-Sangha said:

  
  Dependent origination leads to the pacificiation of views precisely because one cannot say of a dependently originated phenomena "it is" or "it is not", apart from mere convention.
  
  When one no longer entertains views about the existence or non-existence of existents because of understanding dependent origination, one's mind is freed from proliferation, and one can acheive liberation.
  
  ...
  
  At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive refication of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view 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."

  ...

  "In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

  And Buddha said:

   

   

  "Lord, 'right view, right view' is said. What does 'right view' refer to?" -- "Usually, Kaccayana, this world depends upon the dualism of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the world's origin as it actually is with right understanding, there is for him none of (what is called) non-existence in the world; and when he sees the world's cessation as it actually is with right understanding, there is for him none of (what is called) existence in the world.

  "Usually the world is shackled by bias, clinging, and insistence; but one such as this (who has right view), instead of allowing bias, instead of clinging, and instead of deciding about 'my self,' with such bias, such clinging, and such mental decision in the guise of underlying tendency to insist, he has no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is only arising suffering, and what ceases is only ceasing suffering, and in this his knowledge is independent of others. That is what 'right view' refers to. '(An) all exists' is one extreme; '(an) all does not exist' is the other extreme. Instead of resorting to either extreme, a Perfect One expounds the Dhamma by the middle way: 'It is with ignorance as condition that formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness ...' (And so on with both arising and cessation.)"

  SN 12:15

   

  "If one asserts: 'He who makes (suffering) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts: 'One makes (suffering), another feels (it): being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either of these extremes, a Perfect One expounds the Dhamma by the middle way: ... (that is, by dependent arising and cessation)."

  SN 12:17

  "Bhikkkhus, this view (of dependent origination), so clean and pure, if you covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, this view of yours so clean and pure, do not covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it. Do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? Yes, venerable sir."

  
  - Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

  However this does not mean a conceptual understanding of it in the beginning is not important. It is actually very important. That is why the Buddha taught the Noble 8 Fold Path and not just 'naked awareness' alone, there are many aspects to the path that is all equally important. Not to skew to just a single aspect of it. Having the View without practicing mindful awareness diligently won't result in insight, practicing naked awareness without right view won't result in insights into the twofold emptiness, hence both are equally important.

  As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains:

  One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go.

  As explained in the previous post, practice of non-conceptual naked awareness will be insufficient to get rid of the tendency to view things inherently if one does not have the right view and were not mindful of the 3 seals, no-self, dependent origination.

  As Thusness said:

  First 'non-conceptuality' lies in understanding ‘voidness’ conceptually first. That is, having clarity of the ‘concept of voidness’ is an important condition for the arising of non-conceptuality. This is not separating 'conditions' from the arising of a phenomenon. That is when the propensity to divide is there, understanding conceptually is necessary -- conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality. There are other conditions for prajna wisdom it arise like practicing ‘bare attention’.  Second is the emphasis of a 'void background' is an illusion of the mind rather than a direct experience of 'voidness'. 

   

  I think there is a missing link here. In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies.  That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

   I do agree with what thusness says about practive and Right View.

  
  Further on, I think there is a difference to what we have been taught. In what I have been taught, people who have cultivated to have the knowledges, non-duality, emptiness etc, they easily gain back these knowledges. For example, the re-incarnated Lamas or Tulkus. I do not know if they correspond to the 8^th Bhumi Bodhisattvas or not. But being enlightened by birth is unheard of. Even the high incarnations like the Dalai Lamas do not have such ability.

  You should know that even these great lamas and rinpoches were educated on the dharma, had to spend many years practicing to regain their insight from past lives before they are qualified to teach.

  If they have not met the dharma, they would still be unable to give rise to deep insights.

  However it is true that, according to many Buddhist masters (Tibetan, Chinese, etc) including my own Taiwanese dharma teacher have stated that at the eighth bhumi, not only can you choose your rebirth freely at will, you will not lose your realisation from one rebirth to the next.

  If Dalai Lama is truly Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, then he is merely following conventional practice and setting a good example by undergoing training.

  Regarding the 6^th Patriarch’s poem, you miss the point. The words “one should be introduced to it and abide as it”, are in direct contrast with what is proclaimed in the Diamond sutra about non-abiding anywhere.

  "Non-abiding" has many different levels of understanding. All practitioners will experience that to various degrees according to his own level of experience and insight. At the coarser level it is misunderstood as a sense of stepping back detachment, just watching everything as a separate watcher. This is the I AM level. Many people misunderstood "the Mind that does not abide" to mean this. It's misunderstood to mean that the I AM/Eternal Watcher does not abide on phenomena, or that thoughts and phenomena arises and subsides yet the mirror remains unaffected and unchanged. This is not correct.

  At the 'I AM' level, the 'Source' and phenomena are seen as two different components, and one tries to dissociate oneself from phenomena to get a clear glimpse of the formless Absolute. When non-dual is realised, there will be no attempt to dissociate because all is seen as One Mind (Stage 4). Yet do not leave traces, there is truly No Mind (Stage 5). (Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment)

  For a more detailed mapping of the different levels of non-attachment see Thusness's Six Stages of Dropping

  Next...

  Abiding refers to the sense of non-moving. Presence is not moving, when you are in the state of presence you feel no movement. It feels timeless. You will know that this Presence has no coming or going, can never be lost.

  However, at the earlier phase of experience, it will not be clear how all transient phenomenon are 'not moving' -- at this phase, it feels like the background of awareness is unmoving but the foreground of transient phenomenon comes and goes from/in this unchanging awareness. You feel that everything changes and yet the Eternal Witness, I AMness is here for eternity, is never born and never dies. It is the only constant factor in your experience, or rather, it is YOU. A poetic term for this unchanging presence-awareness is "The Still Point in a Turning World". No matter what happens, I AM still that I AM. However, as explained in the article The Spell of Karmic Propensities, the sense that I AM is eternal behind change is still due to the influence of karmic propensities of seeing dualistically and inherently. I have to say that I have not overcome this propensities because I still have the strong sense of a constant image of I AM and Eternal Witness with only passing glimpses of non-dual experience.

  As Thusness explained some months ago:

  
  I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination.
  
  A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat
  1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”.
  then
  2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”.
  
  In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development.
  
  In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point.

  However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.

  -----------------------

  When the second case is experienced, you can say that is true non-abiding abidance. No Source to sink back to, only transience yet transience is felt without movement. Non-dual vivid awareness without 'staying'.

  As Thusness said before:
  

  ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.
  

  Hmm…you mean to say that the 6 Patriarch’s poem lacks non-duality? Yes it seems that’s true. However, it was a response to Shen Xiu’s poem. Nevertheless, there is still a fundamental problem with what the 6^th Patriarch poem. Try to find it!

  When one leans towards formlessness, and create a 'formless' 'odorless' 'thoughtless' image of awareness, one separates it from all phenomenon and thus is unable to see the 'form' of awareness. This is the initial I AM level of experience. But even if you realise non-duality, that is not yet full enlightenment, as explained.

  Yea, faith is important. Again it is a problem with dialectics. When you say “full faith”, I would think you mean ‘conviction’. As said by our friend Isis, I think there are many kinds of faiths. I think we differ on how much faith is needed initially, but we agree on that faith is needed. As what you said, I also think constant reflection on the teaching is necessary.

   

  You know, sometimes with the Kalama Sutta, many religions can be established as correct because they all have a believable complete explanation or story of this world. Like many Christians who feel the presence of God, that is an undeniable experience. Some speak tongues. Without the meditative ability to see the heart bases and minds of oneself, other people and other kinds of beings, we can’t say for sure too what these speaking in tongues is all about. That’s why I always think it is very important to engage in meditation, cultivate concentration and see for ourselves, then wisdom, conviction ias you say, is gained. I feel that should be the way to understand the Buddha’s teachings. When you see clearly by yourself in meditation, how can that be false? If your concentration is good enough, you can even see everyone of your own 'thought moments', the smallest particles on this earth, their properties etc. That is what I really mean by investigation.
  

   

  In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article, he is clarifying that one should not take the article to mean that faith is not needed for the practice of Buddhism, which I agree, some faith is necessary, if not one would not start on the path in the first place. However, he also points out that the sutra has to be contextualized, this I agree too, ina a way. However, from reasons mentioned above, I still believe that one should not just fully believe everything wholesale. Fully believing should only come with investigation, so one must first cultivate the tools for investigation. Then investigate thoroughly. Some people proclaim things to be false, even before they have the right investigation tools. Some others do not investigate thoroughly enough. With regards to the things which are said that cannot be verified, most of the time, they are not important to the ultimate goal. So whether we believe it or not does not really matter! :)

   Agree.

• Emanrohe

  13 Jul 09, 02:31

  Dear AEN,

  # View with taints: this view is mundane. Having this type of view will bring merit and will support the favourable existence of the sentient being in the realm of samsara.
  # View without taints: this view is supramundane. It is a factor of the path and will lead the holder of this view toward self-awakening and liberation from the realm of samsara.
  # The bond of Subject-Object duality: This bond prevents us from the direct experience of anything. It is the sense of a separate self, that is "in here" experiencing something "out there". When hearing the music, it feels that I am an inner experiencer and the music is outside. When non-dual reality is realised, there is no inner-outer division, no me in here and music out there. Just the ISness of the music. You don't hear the music, the music hears. You don't see the scenery, the scenery sees. This is the beginning of seeing through the sense of a separate  self, yet there can still be strong grasping on an ultimate unchanging non-dual Self/Absolute.
  # The bond of Inherency: There are two levels to the bond of inherency: the bond of seeing self as inherent, and the bond of seeing dharmas as inherent. Insight into anatta/no-self removes the self-bond, insight into dependent origination of all dharmas removes the bond of seeing dharmas as inherent. To remove the bond of non-inherency, apart from practicing naked awareness we need to establish right views.

  
  The Classifications are nice. I like them :) I din know such things existed! Haha!
  What I do know is that the method(of having View with taints and progress to without taints) you describe here will definitely work if one is not attached to the words. Where I come from, the method is to simply doubt our enlightenment until it is clearly without doubt.

  
  When a practitioner is unable to see through the bond of inherency, no matter how hard he practices to experience awareness nakedly, he will be unknowingly and subtly reinforcing the bond by sinking back to a Source, a background, a Self. Without the right view of Anatta and Emptiness, non-dual luminosity can be experienced clearly but there will be a tendency to reify that experience. One will still be unable to see fully that 'Manifestation is the Source' and there is nothing to choose, no Source to fall back on, only the transience itself is Buddha-Nature (Dogen: Impermanence is Buddha-Nature).

  
  Yes, a common mistake.

  
  The further insight into dependent origination will make you realise that awareness isn't inherent, it's dependently originated, yet uncaused and unconditioned. This may sound contradictory but it is not.
  
  As Zen teacher David Loy explained:
  
  *...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself,
  because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...

  
  
  Haha, these are all very dangerous words. I would warn all to becareful not to be sucked into any concepts of these. They are but the pointer. It is not how we imagine it to be. Much 'thinking' or 'reflecting' on it can sometimes cause solid ideas and concepts to be formed which seems much like the truth but actually clouds the truth.

  
  Buddha said:
  
  "Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?"

  
  Now since this is the case, when we say the Bodhisattvas are delaying enlightenment to save beings, don't these Bodhisattvas still have a bit of ignorance, if I might say, since they are delaying Buddhahood to save 'mirages'?
  

  
  When the second case is experienced, you can say that is true non-abiding abidance. No Source to sink back to, only transience yet transience is felt without movement. Non-dual vivid awareness without 'staying'.
  
  As Thusness said before:
  
  ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.

  
      Hmm…you mean to say that the 6 Patriarch’s poem lacks non-duality? Yes it seems that’s true. However, it was a response to Shen Xiu’s poem. Nevertheless, there is still a fundamental problem with what the 6th Patriarch poem. Try to find it!
  
  When one leans towards formlessness, and create a 'formless' 'odorless' 'thoughtless' image of awareness, one separates it from all phenomenon and thus is unable to see the 'form' of awareness. This is the initial I AM level of experience. But even if you realise non-duality, that is not yet full enlightenment, as explained.

   

  
  Hmmm...you know, I'll have to warn that the more one tries to explain these insights, the more such explanations become complicated with paradoxical words like 'non-abiding abidence', which is totally un-understandable to the normal human mind as we usually understand words in duality and form ideas. If you can understand the insights by reading the words, then you either already have very good cultivation from the past, having gained such insights before in your past lives or you are cheating yourselves, creating ideas out of these words. They are hard to tell at times, unless one has a certain level or concentration and thus penetrability.
  
  Anyhow, I am very impressed by your Buddhist knowledge and faith (and resourcefulness to bring together so many references). It is really quite impressive for someone at your age. I have been in touch with Buddhism all my life, and I do not have the Buddhist knowledge that you have nor met anyone at your age like you. Knowing all the markers on the path, the only thing left to do is to practice to clarify them. Then your work is done. Next help people. A scholar or an accomplished practitioner is not rare, but a scholar with realisations to boot is rare in this world. It has been nice chatting with you :)

  Metta_(|)_

• An Eternal Now

  13 Jul 09, 05:13

  
  The Classifications are nice. I like them :) I din know such things existed! Haha!
  What I do know is that the method(of having View with taints and progress to without taints) you describe here will definitely work if one is not attached to the words. Where I come from, the method is to simply doubt our enlightenment until it is clearly without doubt.

  I am always using doubt since it is an important part of self inquiry. However 'no more doubts' doesn't mean full enlightenment. The problem is, at certain point one will have full conviction without any more doubts, and think of it as some sort of finality. Often it is the I AM or non-dual experience of realisation.

   

  
  Haha, these are all very dangerous words. I would warn all to becareful not to be sucked into any concepts of these. They are but the pointer. It is not how we imagine it to be. Much 'thinking' or 'reflecting' on it can sometimes cause solid ideas and concepts to be formed which seems much like the truth but actually clouds the truth.

  Too often there's an overemphasis on non-conceptuality. This is no good and this is what I mean by skewing towards certain aspects in practice, i.e. skewing towards naked awareness. Establishing right views is equally necessary and a part of practice. Reading dharma books and understanding it is also a part of practice. Many people even those who experience non-duality skew towards it and miss further insights.

  My understanding is to use concepts to study the teachings to establish the right views, then when practicing do bare attention and mindfulness practice. Of course the point in reading it is not to form a theory about it (about emptiness, anatta, etc), but we should still understand them even conceptually.

  As Thusness have said and I have quoted previously:

   

  First 'non-conceptuality' lies in understanding ‘voidness’ conceptually first. That is, having clarity of the ‘concept of voidness’ is an important condition for the arising of non-conceptuality. This is not separating 'conditions' from the arising of a phenomenon. That is when the propensity to divide is there, understanding conceptually is necessary -- conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality. There are other conditions for prajna wisdom it arise like practicing ‘bare attention’.  Second is the emphasis of a 'void background' is an illusion of the mind rather than a direct experience of 'voidness'. 

   

  I think there is a missing link here. In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies.  That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

  
  Now since this is the case, when we say the Bodhisattvas are delaying enlightenment to save beings, don't these Bodhisattvas still have a bit of ignorance, if I might say, since they are delaying Buddhahood to save 'mirages'?

   

  Emptiness in no way impedes compassion, but when it is seen there is no separate self or a separate person, then compassion flows more freely in response to whatever situations.

  Also, "mirages" does not mean non-existing or completely an illusion: it means that even though suffering is vividly appearing, in reality they cannot be found or located as something inherently existing. However the analogy of 'illusion' or 'mirage' isn't exactly perfect. Because our experiences are not an illusion, they cannot vanish. They are not something that vanishes when some other reality (Brahman, or Nirvana, or whatever) shines forth. Rather, samsara rightly seen, is itself nirvana. The nature of reality lies right in the unreality of phenomena itself.

  After realising emptiness, pain is still pain and fully vivid, but you don't objectify pain as something inherent, where 'you' as a separate experiencer attempts to push it out of existence, and due to the aversion and attachment it results in mental suffering. There is no such experiencer being tormented, there is just that sensation in itself. There's a nice koan regarding pain and suffering: "The whole universe is on fire. Through what kind of samadhi can you escape being burned?" But experiencing and realising this does not mean you do nothing to stop it, spontaneous wisdom and compassion causes you to find some medicine, seek a doctor, etc. But in the meantime you do not create suffering for yourself.

  So samsara is like an illusion but not an illusion, and this is a crucial difference. It does not mean other sentient beings and their sufferings and our experiences are merely an illusion, but that they are dependently arisen appearances and does not have intrinsic reality. Conventionally we speak of 'red flowers', 'sentient beings', this and that, but there is nothing truly existing upon observation. Buddhists do not deny the world, we only try to rectify the wrong vision of the world.

  A Bodhisattva's compassion is different since he does not perceive himself as 'someone' going to 'save' other 'sentient beings'. As Diamond Sutra states, a Bodhisattva does not hold such inherent and separative views. Yet nevertheless spontaneous wisdom and compassion shines forth in response to suffering, without dualistic intention and effort.

  
  Hmmm...you know, I'll have to warn that the more one tries to explain these insights, the more such explanations become complicated with paradoxical words like 'non-abiding abidence', which is totally un-understandable to the normal human mind as we usually understand words in duality and form ideas. If you can understand the insights by reading the words, then you either already have very good cultivation from the past, having gained such insights before in your past lives or you are cheating yourselves, creating ideas out of these words. They are hard to tell at times, unless one has a certain level or concentration and thus penetrability.

  Actually what is spoken here is not abstract theory. When you experience it you'll realise, "Oh, so it's exactly as described!"

  When there is no one abiding and no point of abidance, what is left is only This, and This, and This, each This is a complete, whole, disjoint and unmoving manifestation abides in itself and of itself. The sensation of movement arises when a sense of an observer looking back arises. When I first experienced that, I understood what my teacher meant by "When you walk you don't feel like you're walking" which before the experience I was still pondering what it meant. I have glimpses of this but it requires one to be very present and non-dual with the activity. When there is non-dual insight, non-dual experience becomes effortless because it's seen 'how' there never was a separation in the first place. I do not have non-dual insights yet, only very strong experiences/glimpses of non-duality and ego-death (feels like the sense of self 'dies' and only the universe is left) that comes and goes.

  Zen Master Seung Sahn elaborated on this topic in his excellent book The Compass of Zen (p. 143):

   

  "Everyone thinks that this is extremely difficult teaching, something beyond their reach or experience. How can things appear and disappear, and yet there is, originally, even in this constantly moving world, no appearing and disappearing? A student once asked me, 'The Mahaparinirvana-sutra seems very confusing. Everything is always moving. And yet everything is not moving? I don't understand this Buddhism . . .' But there is a very easy way to understand this: Sometime you go to a movie. You see an action movie about a good man and a bad man--lots of fighting, cars moving very fast, and explosions all over the place. Everything is always moving very quickly. Our daily lives have this quality: everything is constantly moving, coming and going, nonstop. It seems like there is no stillness-place. But this movie is really only a very long strip of film. In one second, there are something like fourteen frames. Each frame is a separate piece of action. But in each frame, nothing is moving. Everything is completely still. Each frame, one by one, is a complete picture. In each frame, nothing ever comes or goes, or appears or disappears. Each frame is complete stillness. The film projector moves the frames very quickly, and all of these frames run past the lens very fast, so the action on-screen seems to happen nonstop. There is no break in the movement of things. But actually when you take this strip of film and hold it up to the light with your hands, there is nothing moving at all. Each frame is complete. Each moment is completely not-moving action.

  "Our minds and the whole universe are like that. This world is impermanent. Everything is always changing, changing, changing, moving, moving, moving, nonstop. Even one second of our lives seems full of so much movement and change in this world that we see. But your mind--right now--is like a lens whose shutter speed is one divided by infinite time. We call that moment-mind. If you attain that mind, then this whole world's movement stops. From moment to moment you can see this world completely stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Like the film, you perceive every frame--this moment--which is infinitely still and complete. In the frame, nothing is moving. There is no time, and nothing appears or disappears in that box. But this movie projector--your thinking mind--is always moving, around and around and around, so you experience this world as constantly moving and you constantly experience change, which is impermanence. You lose moment-mind by following your conceptual thinking, believing that it is real."

  Longchen wrote something similar a few years back:

  
  Regarding the 'stopping of mind'...you cannot stop the mind. The 'I' , 'me' or the 'sense of self' simply got no power over the arising of thoughts. You can give this a try. Try to stop yourself from thinking or feeling. You will get frustrated because you cannot stop these thoughts and feelings. This becomes more obvious when your are feeling sad and you tell yourself to stop feeling so.
  
  Do you know how present moment feels like? It feels that everything is not moving. This is because awareness is fully aligned with changes at the precise present moment. It is not because the mind has being stopped.
  
  The Present moment is the vastness that i am talking about. In the present moment/Now, there is no sense of 'I'. When walking, there is just the sensation of feet again the ground. When hearing, there is no 'I' that hears... it is directly hearing the sound. And so on so forth. Inner and outer merge as One. There is no 'I' that is in between the sensations. The expereince is direct and you realise that all there is is consciousness. And consciousness cannot be harmed or destroyed.
  
  Also in Present Moment awareness, there is a lightness of Being. Perception takes on a luminous quality. If the perceptions are also deconstructed/dissolved, pure light and energy will be experienced. Here we will directly realise that the Universe or Source is Light and Raw Energy. The 'downstepping' creates the impression of solidity or physicality.

  Nice chatting with you too.

• An Eternal Now

  15 Jul 09, 18:59

  Vimalakirti Chapter Seven, The Goddess.

  "Thereupon, Manjusri, the crown prince, addressed the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Good sir, how should a bodhisattva regard all living beings?"

  Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, a bodhisattva should regard all livings beings as a wise man regards the reflection of the moon in water or as magicians regard men created by magic. He should regard them as being like a face in a mirror; like the water of a mirage; like the sound of an echo; like a mass of clouds in the sky; like the previous moment of a ball of foam; like the appearance and disappearance of a bubble of water; like the core of a plantain tree; like a flash of lightning; like the fifth great element; like the seventh sense-medium; like the appearance of matter in an immaterial realm; like a sprout from a rotten seed; like a tortoise-hair coat; like the fun of games for one who wishes to die; like the egoistic views of a stream-winner; like a third rebirth of a once-returner; like the descent of a nonreturner into a womb; like the existence of desire, hatred, and folly in a saint; like thoughts of avarice, immorality, wickedness, and hostility in a bodhisattva who has attained tolerance; like the instincts of passions in a Tathagata; like the perception of color in one blind from birth; like the inhalation and exhalation of an ascetic absorbed in the meditation of cessation; like the track of a bird in the sky; like the erection of a eunuch; like the pregnancy of a barren woman; like the unproduced passions of an emanated incarnation of the Tathagata; like dream-visions seen after waking; like the passions of one who is free of conceptualizations; like fire burning without fuel; like the reincarnation of one who has attained ultimate liberation.

  "Precisely thus, Manjusri, does a bodhisattva who realizes the ultimate selflessness consider all beings."

  Manjusri then asked further, "Noble sir, if a bodhisattva considers all living beings in such a way, how does he generate the great love toward them?"

  Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, when a bodhisattva considers all living beings in this way, he thinks: 'Just as I have realized the Dharma, so should I teach it to living beings.' Thereby, he generates the love that is truly a refuge for all living beings; the love that is peaceful because free of grasping; the love that is not feverish, because free of passions; the love that accords with reality because it is equanimous in all three times; the love that is without conflict because free of the violence of the passions; the love that is nondual because it is involved neither with the external nor with the internal; the love that is imperturbable because totally ultimate.

  "Thereby he generates the love that is firm, its high resolve unbreakable, like a diamond; the love that is pure, purified in its intrinsic nature; the love that is even, its aspirations being equal; the saint's love that has eliminated its enemy; the bodhisattva's love that continuously develops living beings; The Tathagata's love that understands reality; the Buddha's love that causes living beings to awaken from their sleep; the love that is spontaneous because it is fully enlightened spontaneously; the love that is enlightenment because it is unity of experience; the love that has no presumption because it has eliminated attachment and aversion; the love that is great compassion because it infuses the Mahayana with radiance; the love that is never exhausted because it acknowledges voidness and selflessness; the love that is giving because it bestows the gift of Dharma free of the tight fist of a bad teacher; the love that is morality because it improves immoral living beings; the love that is tolerance because it protects both self and others; the love that is effort because it takes responsibility for all living beings; the love that is contemplation because it refrains from indulgence in tastes; the love that is wisdom because it causes attainment at the proper time; the love that is liberative technique because it shows the way everywhere; the love that is without formality because it is pure in motivation; the love that is without deviation because it acts from decisive motivation; the love that is high resolve because it is without passions; the love that is without deceit because it is not artificial; the love that is happiness because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha. Such, Manjusri, is the great love of a bodhisattva."

  Manjusri: What is the great compassion of a bodhisattva?

  Vimalakirti: It is the giving of all accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings.

  Manjusri: What is the great joy of the bodhisattva?

  Vimalakirti: It is to be joyful and without regret in giving.

  Manjusri: What is the equanimity of the bodhisattva?

  Vimalakirti: It is what benefits both self and others.

  Manjusri: To what should one resort when terrified by fear of life?

  Vimalakirti: Manjusri, a bodhisattva who is terrified by fear of life should resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha.

  Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha take his stand?

  Vimalakirti: He should stand in equanimity toward all living beings.

  Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to stand in equanimity toward all living beings take his stand?

  Vimalakirti: He should live for the liberation of all living beings.

  Manjusri: What should he who wishes to liberate all living beings do?

  Vimalakirti: He should liberate them from their passions.

  Manjusri: How should he who wishes to eliminate passions apply himself?

  Vimalakirti: He should apply himself appropriately.

  Manjusri: How should he apply himself, to "apply himself appropriately"?

  Vimalakirti: He should apply himself to productionlessness and to destructionlessness.

  Manjusri: What is not produced? And what is not destroyed?

  Vimalakirti: Evil is not produced and good is not destroyed.

  Manjusri: What is the root of good and evil?

  Vimalakirti: Materiality is the root of good and evil.

  Manjusri: What is the root of materiality?

  Vimalakirti: Desire is the root of materiality.

  Manjusri: What is the root of desire and attachment?

  Vimalakirti: Unreal construction is the root of desire.

  Manjusri: What is the root of unreal construction?

  Vimalakirti: The false concept is its root.

  Manjusri: What is the root of the false concept?

  Vimalakirti: Baselessness.

  Manjusri: What it the root of baselessness?

  Vimalakirti: Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless.

  Thereupon, a certain goddess who lived in that house, having heard this teaching of the Dharma of the great heroic bodhisattvas, and being delighted, pleased, and overjoyed, manifested herself in a material body and showered the great spiritual heroes, the bodhisattvas, and the great disciples with heavenly flowers. When the flowers fell on the bodies of the bodhisattvas, they fell off on the floor, but when they fell on the bodies of the great disciples, they stuck to them and did not fall. The great disciples shook the flowers and even tried to use their magical powers, but still the flowers would not shake off. Then, the goddess said to the venerable Sariputra, "Reverend Sariputra, why do you shake these flowers?"

  Sariputra replied, "Goddess, these flowers are not proper for religious persons and so we are trying to shake them off."

  The goddess said, "Do not say that, reverend Sariputra. Why? These flowers are proper indeed! Why? Such flowers have neither constructual thought nor discrimination. But the elder Sariputra has both constructual thought and discrimination.

  "Reverend Sariputra, impropriety for one who has renounced the world for the discipline of the rightly taught Dharma consists of constructual thought and discrimination, yet the elders are full of such thoughts. One who is without such thoughts is always proper.

  "Reverend Sariputra, see how these flowers do not stick to the bodies of these great spiritual heroes, the bodhisattvas! This is because they have eliminated constructual thoughts and discriminations.

  "For example, evil spirits have power over fearful men but cannot disturb the fearless. Likewise, those intimidated by fear of the world are in the power of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and textures, which do not disturb those who are free from fear of the passions inherent in the constructive world. Thus, these flowers stick to the bodies of those who have not eliminated their instincts for the passions and do not stick to the bodies of those who have eliminated their instincts. Therefore, the flowers do not stick to the bodies of these bodhisattvas, who have abandoned all instincts."

  Then the venerable Sariputra said to the goddess, "Goddess, how long have you been in this house?"

  The goddess replied, "I have been here as long as the elder has been in liberation."

  Sariputra said, "Then, have you been in this house for quite some time?"

  The goddess said, "Has the elder been in liberation for quite some time?"

  At that, the elder Sariputra fell silent.

  The goddess continued, "Elder, you are 'foremost of the wise!' Why do you not speak? Now, when it is your turn, you do not answer the question."

  Sariputra: Since liberation is inexpressible, goddess, I do not know what to say.

  Goddess: All the syllables pronounced by the elder have the nature of liberation. Why? Liberation is neither internal nor external, nor can it be apprehended apart from them. Likewise, syllables are neither internal nor external, nor can they be apprehended anywhere else. Therefore, reverend Sariputra, do not point to liberation by abandoning speech! Why? The holy liberation is the equality of all things!

  Sariputra: Goddess, is not liberation the freedom from desire, hatred, and folly?

  Goddess: "Liberation is freedom from desire, hatred, and folly" that is the teaching of the excessively proud. But those free of pride are taught that the very nature of desire, hatred, and folly is itself liberation.

  Sariputra: Excellent! Excellent, goddess! Pray, what have you attained, what have you realized, that you have such eloquence?

  Goddess: I have attained nothing, reverend Sariputra. I have no realization. Therefore I have such eloquence. Whoever thinks, "I have attained! I have realized!" is overly proud in the discipline of the well-taught Dharma.

  Sariputra: Goddess, do you belong to the disciple-vehicle, to the solitary-vehicle, or to the great vehicle?

  Goddess: I belong to the disciple-vehicle when I teach it to those who need it. I belong to the solitary-vehicle when I teach the twelve links of dependent origination to those who need them. And, since I never abandon the great compassion, I belong to the great vehicle, as all need that teaching to attain ultimate liberation.

  Nevertheless, reverend Sariputra, just as one cannot smell the castor plant in a magnolia wood, but only the magnolia flowers, so, reverend Sariputra, living in this house, which is redolent with the perfume of the virtues of the Buddha-qualities, one does not smell the perfume of the disciples and the solitary sages. Reverend Sariputra, the Sakras, the Brahmas, the Lokapalas, the devas, nagas, yaksas, gandharvas, asuras, garudas, kimnaras, and mahoragas who live in this house hear the Dharma from the mouth of this holy man and, enticed by the perfume of the virtues of the Buddha-qualities, proceed to conceive the spirit of enlightenment.

  Reverend Sariputra, I have been in this house for twelve years, and I have heard no discourses concerning the disciples and solitary sages but have heard only those concerning the great love, the great compassion, and the inconceivable qualities of the Buddha.

  Reverend Sariputra, eight strange and wonderful things manifest themselves constantly in this house. What are these eight?

  A light of golden hue shines here constantly, so bright that it is hard to distinguish day and night; and neither the moon nor the sun shines here distinctly. That is the first wonder of this house.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, whoever enters this house is no longer troubled by his passions from the moment he is within. That is the second strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, this house is never forsaken by Sakra, Brahma, the Lokapalas, and the bodhisattvas from all the other buddha-fields. That is the third strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, this house is never empty of the sounds of the Dharma, the discourse on the six transcendences, and the discourses of the irreversible wheel of the Dharma. That is the fourth strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, in this house one always hears the rhythms, songs, and music of gods and men, and from this music constantly resounds the sound of the infinite Dharma of the Buddha. That is the fifth strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, in this house there are always four inexhaustible treasures, replete with all kinds of jewels, which never decrease, although all the poor and wretched may partake to their satisfaction. That is the sixth strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, at the wish of this good man, to this house come the innumerable Tathagatas of the ten directions, such as the Tathagatas Sakyamuni, Amitabha, Aksobhya, Ratnasri, Ratnarcis, Ratnacandra, Ratnavyuha, Dusprasaha, Sarvarthasiddha, Ratnabahula, Simhakirti, Simhasvara, and so forth; and when they come they teach the door of Dharma called the "Secrets of the Tathagatas" and then depart. That is the seventh strange and wonderful thing.

  Furthermore, reverend Sariputra, all the splendors of the abodes of the gods and all the splendors of the fields of the Buddhas shine forth in this house. That is the eighth strange and wonderful thing.

  Reverend Sariputra, these eight strange and wonderful things are seen in this house. Who then, seeing such inconceivable things, would believe the teaching of the disciples?

  Sariputra: Goddess, what prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state?

  Goddess: Although I have sought my "female state" for these twelve years, I have not yet found it. Reverend Sariputra, if a magician were to incarnate a woman by magic, would you ask her, "What prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state?"

  Sariputra: No! Such a woman would not really exist, so what would there be to transform?

  Goddess: Just so, reverend Sariputra, all things do not really exist. Now, would you think, "What prevents one whose nature is that of a magical incarnation from transforming herself out of her female state?"

  Thereupon, the goddess employed her magical power to cause the elder Sariputra to appear in her form and to cause herself to appear in his form. Then the goddess, transformed into Sariputra, said to Sariputra, transformed into a goddess, "Reverend Sariputra, what prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state?"

  And Sariputra, transformed into the goddess, replied, "I no longer appear in the form of a male! My body has changed into the body of a woman! I do not know what to transform!"

  The goddess continued, "If the elder could again change out of the female state, then all women could also change out of their female states. All women appear in the form of women in just the same way

  as the elder appears in the form of a woman. While they are not women in reality, they appear in the form of women. With this in mind, the Buddha said, 'In all things, there is neither male nor female.'"

  Then, the goddess released her magical power and each returned to his ordinary form. She then said to him, "Reverend Sariputra, what have you done with your female form?"

  Sariputra: I neither made it nor did I change it.

  Goddess: Just so, all things are neither made nor changed, and that they are not made and not changed, that is the teaching of the Buddha.

  Sariputra: Goddess, where will you be born when you transmigrate after death?

  Goddess: I will be born where all the magical incarnations of the Tathagata are born.

  Sariputra: But the emanated incarnations of the Tathagata do not transmigrate nor are they born.

  Goddess: All things and living beings are just the same; they do not transmigrate nor are they born!

  Sariputra: Goddess, how soon will you attain the perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood?

  Goddess: At such time as you, elder, become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual, then will I attain the perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood.

  Sariputra: Goddess, it is impossible that I should become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual.

  Goddess: Just so, reverend Sariputra, it is impossible that I should attain the perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood! Why? Because perfect enlightenment stands upon the impossible. Because it is impossible, no one attains the perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood.

  Sariputra: But the Tathagata has declared: "The Tathagatas, who are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, have attained perfect Buddhahood, are attaining perfect Buddhahood, and will go on attaining perfect Buddhahood."

  Goddess: Reverend Sariputra, the expression, "the Buddhas of the past, present and future," is a conventional expression made up of a certain number of syllables. The Buddhas are neither past, nor present, nor future. Their enlightenment transcends the three times! But tell me, elder, have you attained sainthood?

  Sariputra: It is attained, because there is no attainment.

  Goddess: Just so, there is perfect enlightenment because there is no attainment of perfect enlightenment.

  Then the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to the venerable elder Sariputra, "Reverend Sariputra, this goddess has already served ninety-two million billion Buddhas. She plays with the superknowledges. She has truly succeeded in all her vows. She has gained the tolerance of the birthlessness of things. She has actually attained irreversibility. She can live wherever she wishes on the strength of her vow to develop living beings."

  8. The Family of the Tathagatas

  Then, the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "Noble sir, how does the bodhisattva follow the way to attain the qualities of the Buddha?"

  Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, when the bodhisattva follows the wrong way, he follows the way to attain the qualities of the Buddha."

  Manjusri continued, "How does the bodhisattva follow the wrong way?"

  Vimalakirti replied, "Even should he enact the five deadly sins, he feels no malice, violence, or hate. Even should he go into the hells, he remains free of all taint of passions. Even should he go into the states of the animals, he remains free of darkness and ignorance. When he goes into the states of the asuras, he remains free of pride, conceit, and arrogance. When he goes into the realm of the lord of death, he accumulates the stores of merit and wisdom. When he goes into the states of motionlessness and immateriality, he does not dissolve therein.

  "He may follow the ways of desire, yet he stays free of attachment to the enjoyments of desire. He may follow the ways of hatred, yet he feels no anger to any living being. He may follow the ways of folly, yet he is ever conscious with the wisdom of firm understanding.

  "He may follow the ways of avarice, yet he gives away all internal and external things without regard even for his own life. He may follow the ways of immorality, yet, seeing the horror of even the slightest transgressions, he lives by the ascetic practices and austerities. He may follow the ways of wickedness and anger, yet he remains utterly free of malice and lives by love. He may follow the ways of laziness, yet his efforts are uninterrupted as he strives in the cultivation of roots of virtue. He may follow the ways of sensuous distraction, yet, naturally concentrated, his contemplation is not dissipated. He may follow the ways of false wisdom, yet, having reached the transcendence of wisdom, he is expert in all mundane and transcendental sciences.

   

• Emanrohe

  16 Jul 09, 10:05

  Dear AEN,

   

  Words are the Truth only when the reader and speaker has seen the Truth. Before that they remain as delusions and can only do so much.

   

  With regards to conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality, there needs not to be understanding of the teachings conceptually first. This is because naturally the ignorant person understands his world conceptually. As such, any concepts he has(which are numerous) can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

   

  When there is an overemphasis of conceptuality in teaching Buddhism, the school of non-conceptuality arises. This is how the world works. Many a times it is not that they are skewed. It is also not that there is no merit in teaching Buddhist concepts. But that they are fine as starters. However, they can never lead to liberation. Liberation can only come with practice and realisations. As far as they lead one to practice, it is fine. However, if they lead one to delight in one's own ideas, then it is not good. Talking about realisations can only bring one so far. But talking about the methods of practice is slightly different. Repeating another's words also can only go so far, saying something of one's own is more beneficial for teaching.

   

  Metta_(|)_  :)

• An Eternal Now

  16 Jul 09, 11:36

  Originally posted by Emanrohe:

  Dear AEN,

   

  Words are the Truth only when the reader and speaker has seen the Truth. Before that they remain as delusions and can only do so much.

   

  With regards to conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality, there needs not to be understanding of the teachings conceptually first. This is because naturally the ignorant person understands his world conceptually. As such, any concepts he has(which are numerous) can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

   

  When there is an overemphasis of conceptuality in teaching Buddhism, the school of non-conceptuality arises. This is how the world works. Many a times it is not that they are skewed. It is also not that there is no merit in teaching Buddhist concepts. But that they are fine as starters. However, they can never lead to liberation. Liberation can only come with practice and realisations. As far as they lead one to practice, it is fine. However, if they lead one to delight in one's own ideas, then it is not good. Talking about realisations can only bring one so far. But talking about the methods of practice is slightly different. Repeating another's words also can only go so far, saying something of one's own is more beneficial for teaching.

   

  Metta_(|)_  :)

  You see, you're still skewing to the other side of the equation i.e. nonconceptuality. A counter-argument to the statement that concepts cannot lead to liberation is that, while true, equally true is the other side of the equation: without conceptual understanding of right views, there cannot be liberation as well.

  I didn't say conceptual understanding alone can lead to liberation. I did not skew towards conceptuality. I am not advocating that at all, I am advocating balance and completeness of the path that Buddha preached.

  I also said, conceptual right view is part of the path that leads to liberation, but there are other conditions including mindfulness of the right view and bare attention/naked awareness.

  However, I have also warned that naked awareness alone cannot lead to liberation, and even though without establishing right views one can still give rise to the direct non-conceptual realisation of the pure I AMness, Eternal Witness, or even Non-Dual Awareness -- and YET is unable to penetrate the insights into Anatta and Emptiness. Many people even those outside of Buddhism whether from other religions or non-religious have experienced I AMness and Non-Duality, yet they have not realised Emptiness, and I've never seen any non-Buddhist that had, unfortunately. But this is not just a problem of non-Buddhist -- even more unfortunately, most Buddhists still do not see the importance of right views and the insight of non-inherency and factor that into their path. Also, you don't have to be a scholar or academic to have right view. As Loppon Namdrol once said, I can't remember the exact words: you don't have to be a scholar, but you have to have the rght understanding of emptiness.

  I must say that Tibetan Buddhism is more balanced -- not that I am a biased Tibetan Buddhist, I am still more towards Chinese Mahayana. It is not that they are more academic, but they do not miss out the importance of the empty aspect and the right views, and at the same time they also emphasize the importance of meditative training. This is just a generalisation of course -- because there are also Tibetan Buddhist particularly the Shentongpas who skew towards eternalism and luminosity and misunderstood the truth of emptiness, and also there are Zen masters who emphasize the insight of emptiness and dependent origination.

  Anyway back to topic. So you see, non-conceptual experience or insights does not necessarily mean enlightenment in the Buddhist sense. Having a direct non-conceptual experience and realisation with utter conviction without doubts of some non-conceptual reality like the experience of I AM or Non-Duality is not the same as realising emptiness. These insights concerns the luminous, cognitive aspect of Awareness but not its emptiness. Those experiences are very important, and if you still remember I have dedicated a few threads recently to just this aspect alone. Yet it is still not yet the type of realisation that is required to raise to the ranks of the Aryas. To realise emptiness, you need to have right views as a pre-condition. Having realised both luminosity and emptiness, one realises the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Both are insights important and must be seen as inseparable.

  Without right view, the path cannot be complete, therefore you must factor that conceptual understanding into the path as well, that's why it's the noble 8 fold path, and not 7 or 6 or 5. If you think right practice is possible without right view, then it is no longer in accord with Buddhadharma and Buddha who saw it as necessary and inseparable. What I'm saying is, the 8 fold path must be seen as a Whole without leaving out any parts.

  Also:

  With regards to conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality, there needs not to be understanding of the teachings conceptually first. This is because naturally the ignorant person understands his world conceptually. As such, any concepts he has(which are numerous) can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

   

  You said "can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality", do you mean "can" or "cannot" and why?

   

  Anyway, first of all, sentient being's views is definitely different from the Buddhist's right view. They are considered wrong views. Why? Because most people have all sorts of wrong views: eternalistic views, Self-view, or nihilistic views, views of 'this exists', 'this does not exists', etc. You can never gain liberation with wrong views.

  Only Buddha's view is Right View and only by learning his Right View can it become an antidote to our problems. Buddha's Right View is the view that sees not a self, that sees not an inherent Dharma: it is the Middle Way beyond all extremes. So we must at least understand this conceptually, as it will become an antidote and raft for us to overcome our wrong views. It will become a condition to give rise to the insight of 'Non-Inherency'. When we realise that all 'selves' and 'dharmas' are not inherent, our concepts are naturally dissolve. We cannot dissolve these concepts by remaining naked in awareness alone. We have to give rise to the insight of non-inherency and one of the conditions to give rise to this insight is to establish the right view conceptually.  That is why Thusness said: That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

  p.s. sorry, I tried to update the message much earlier on but it could not display as sgForums server had some errors

• An Eternal Now

  16 Jul 09, 14:03

  Of course as I mentioned, having right view of no-self, emptiness, depndent origination is not enough, though the conceptual understanding is important because without it (right view) one cannot practice right mindfulness, as the Buddha put it. But right mindfulness of the right view in real-time direct experence is equally important.

  Thusness:

  A casual comment about Dependent Origination

  Quite few articles you (AEN) have there about Dependent Origination. :-)
  
  After reading these articles, something came to my mind. I just want to say something about the importance of direct experience. If we only understand in terms of concepts and theories, we will not be able to appreciate the beauty of Dependent Origination. Frankly, stressing Self as permanent, unchanging and independent does not make it ultimate; instead we merely cage what that is seamless, free, connected without boundaries into something limited and dualistic. These “permanent, unchanging and independent” characteristics merely appear appealing due to our inherent and dualistic tendencies of seeing things, in practice, holding to these characteristics will only present itself as a hindrance than help. In actual experience it is ‘Emptiness nature’ that is liberating.
  
  I have always stressed the importance of direct realization and experience of this ‘vividly present’ yet completely un-locatable nature of Pristine Awareness. It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualize but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability' (see On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection). Are we able to feel, this moment vividly and clearly yet unmistakably see how this moment of manifestation is free from any ‘now’, ‘here’ and ‘self’? ‘Here, now and Self’ are convenient references, nothing ultimate. Similarly when we say sensations, are we having direct experience of what sensations are? If for a moment we are able to give up all arbitrary thoughts/definitions and vividly experience in bare all these arising and passing sensations, we will realize that they are nothing but just luminous happening. We will realize that the transience is Awareness itself. This is vipassana; this will bring the “background consciousness” into the foreground. Still this ‘foreground’ though free from all labelings must be further emptied. Therefore after anatta (non-dual), Dependent Origination are further taught.
  
  The purpose of Dependent Origination is to free us from the limitation of our subject/object dichotomy and see phenomena and our nature in new light. The mind will continue its attempt to sort, categorize and frame seamless experience into its dualistic schema. Experience maybe non-dual but insight can still not arise; even if non-dual realization arises, it still needs time to mature and stabilize. Before we can liberate ourselves sufficiently from the dualistic framework and correctly understand our nature that is beyond words, non-dual experience will still be understood dualistically in a very subtle manner without us even noticing it, not to underestimate it. We have been so affected by inherent and dualistic views that we fail to realize that how views and imprints influence us.
  
  It is therefore advisable to replace our existing inherent and dualistic framework with Dependent Origination. If Dependent Origination simply remains as a form of knowledge, then it defeats the purpose. It must pervade our entire being so that we can feel, experience and understand deeply how Dependent Origination is not limited or constraint by space, time, self, any centricity or point of references. That said it must not be another view to attach to; simply another skillful mean to lead us go beyond the simplistic view of “permanent, unchanging and independent” characteristics of our pristine nature. Ultimately our nature is free from any sort of views and no expression can adequately express it. Dependent Origination is too a raft; it is like the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by fire without leaving any trace.
  
  Lastly if practitioners that have direct realization of the ‘Self’ can have similar sort of intensity in both realization and experience of their ‘Emptiness’ nature (as they have in ‘Self’), they will appreciate the beauty and find delight in seeing our nature as dependently originated. For what that dependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and does not cease.

   

• geis

  16 Jul 09, 23:16

  Hi all

  have been reading this forum for very long and would like to share some experience, but first must thank all who have shared all the articles that have helped put meaning to the experiences.

  im not one who's well versed in the sutras but have been practicing meditation, and feels that maintaining the right view is important in our journey. when one in their practice manages to realize the subtle processes that reinforces the sense of 'self' and at the same time be able to identify the process of thoughts arising due to conditions, one can be mistakenly led to 'feel' as if awareness is a permanent 'always here' essence. as a result one may be confused and may actually just reverse the object-subject view which in this case awareness becomes the object and 'self' the subject.

  even as one manages to 'see thru' this, it still doesnt mean anything at all... in our everyday lives almost every encounter serves to reinforce the feeling of the 'self' and its utmost important that we maintain vigilant in our practice by means of the eight-fold path so that gradually the influence thins down. the journey is never ending, and most of us will still need to fulfill our obligations and work which would constantly bring back the old 'selfs'. which is why effort is still required even as one has experiences of no-self and dependent origination until the tendencies to fall back diminishes completely if ever.

  as for conceptually understanding and non-conceptual understanding, probably a person without some experience will not be able to understand the clumsy words that are used to describe the processes. its thru some form of practice, then using the readings or teachings as a guide, manages to get some conceptual understanding then subsequently progress in one's practice until there is thorough understanding that's directly from experience. and such experience usually its tough to put into words. at the non conceptual stage probably only the skilled teachers will be able to explain using words, but then again without some experience the words take a totally different meaning.

   

   

• geis

  16 Jul 09, 23:43

  with respect to the original poster of this thread, probably the point to ponder is not whether 'religion enlightenment' are the same. 'to attain enlightenment' thru 'religion' are but constructs conceived by the 'self'??

• An Eternal Now

  17 Jul 09, 03:08

  Originally posted by geis:

  Hi all

  have been reading this forum for very long and would like to share some experience, but first must thank all who have shared all the articles that have helped put meaning to the experiences.

  im not one who's well versed in the sutras but have been practicing meditation, and feels that maintaining the right view is important in our journey. when one in their practice manages to realize the subtle processes that reinforces the sense of 'self' and at the same time be able to identify the process of thoughts arising due to conditions, one can be mistakenly led to 'feel' as if awareness is a permanent 'always here' essence. as a result one may be confused and may actually just reverse the object-subject view which in this case awareness becomes the object and 'self' the subject.

   

  Hi, welcome to the forum.

  Yes, non-dual awareness can be misinterpreted due to our karmic propensities distorting the experence into an unchanging essence by constant referencing. Not so much that we treat Awareness as an object and self as subject. Rather Awareness becomes misunderstood as the Pure Subject that cannot be the object of observation but nevertheless observes everything -- like the eye that sees everything but can't be seen. So at the I AM/Eternal Witness phase, you experence yourself as the True Self behind the world, including the 'small self' or ego consisting of conceptual images of your identity in the world (name, personality, status etc) and your identity in relation to others (as friend, spouse, relative, etc). That means the I AM is seen as not all of these, but rather something that is behind and Witnessing all of these thoughts. These thoughts fade in and out of awareness but Awareness can never be lost -- it is what is continuing to witness these thoughts, and phenomena, coming and going. You can never lose awareness otherwise you will not be aware of anything. It is not something to be sustained but something that has always been the case, as your unchanging nature of you/your mind. However whether we notice it, is another matter. Although it has been our nature all along for countless lifetimes, most have not yet recognised it. So it is simply a matter of recognising, abiding, and then realising (which is even more advanced than recognition -- in realisation of that I AM you have full conviction in your luminous nature, but even this is not yet Buddhist enlightenment). This is an important realisation and you will gain complete conviction of your luminous cognitive nature of consciousness.

  However, this initial experience will also create a contrast and separation between "Relative world" and "Absolute source". In reality we cannot separate the "knowingness" apart from phenomenality, this separation is purely due to abstraction but it is subtle to see it. Yes, it is true that awareness can never be lost no matter what you are experiencing, but the abstraction/separation of awareness from transiency is purely fabricated. In truth transiency experienced in full is not something that comes in and out of awareness, because it is itself the transiently unmoving awareness. In other words one cannot speak of a transient phenomena apart from awareness in order to come in and out of awareness, because the transience itself is awareness and there is no other awareness than that. Whatever manifests, IS it. There is no denying of the presenc-ing and witnessing, but its seen that all manifestations is it. There is non-dual witnessing which is not separate from the wholeness of the universe, witnessing is going on but no separate witness is found. There is no light behind the eyes seeing everything but rather, the light and the 'everything' is one and the same.

  Even the I AMness is a non-dual experience of pure beingness, where there is just that pure sense of existence without any feeling of separation, a separate self or observer, i.e. you are not aware as a separate someone or experiencer of the awareness, rather you become or rather you ARE that awareness/presence/beingness.

  But the mind later creates a constant image of that I AMness and separates it from all other phenomena and becomes the blueprint in which we experience consciousness, an image that causes us to keep shunting the transience and sink into a background Source or Witness. IT becomes the Eternal Witness of experience, the Pure Subject that cannot be the object of observation but nevertheless observes everything undiscriminately. When there is Non-Dual experience, it's realised that the I AM experience is just an aspect of awareness but not the totality of it: even in the scenery, the sound, even that is no different than the Pure I AMness. But non-dual experience does not mean giving rise to non-dual insights, and without that one will still keep sinking back to a Source.

   

  evas one manages to 'see thru' this, it still doesnt mean anything at all... in our everyday lives almost every encounter serves to reinforce the feeling of the 'self' and its utmost important that we maintain vigilant in our practice by means of the eight-fold path so that gradually the influence thins down. the journey is never ending, and most of us will still need to fulfill our obligations and work which would constantly bring back the old 'selfs'. which is why effort is still required even as one has experiences of no-self and dependent origination until the tendencies to fall back diminishes completely if ever.

  You have to understand that there is a difference between a passing non-dual experience and truly "seeing through this".

  That is, the experience of non-duality no matter how intense is still different from the insight into how reality has always by nature been non-dual and there never was any separation from the beginning... that is there never was a self, a separate experiencer, doer, seer, witness, apart from transient self-manifesting self-knowing processes.

  The tendency to sink back into separation can continue as long as non-dual insight has not arisen. However once it has arisen, one will be able to effortless perceive (not as a separate perceiver) non-dual awareness in real time, even in daily activities and interactions one is able to experience no-self. Because it is realised that no-self is not a stage to be get at, but rather a 'self' has never and can never be found in direct experience which is non-dual. If a person says he has gone from a stage of "I hear sound" to "I become sound", then it is still not permanent non-dual insight but just a temporary non-dual experience. Rather, in seeing there is Always just scenery, never was there a seer from the beginning, it is always so. In hearing just sound, etc, always so -- no hearer. The 'self' is like a santa claus that once you realised it never was real, was fictitious, it is seen through and cannot be believed in again.

  At the coarser level of non-dual insight, the insight of non-duality pervades one's conscious experience so during the whole of waking life one is able to experience non-duality except during very tremendous stressful circumstances, then it is possible to lose non-dual experience for a while because old dualistic propensities are reacting, resulting in a sense of contraction in which a sense of self and experiencer-experience split arises causing suffering, aversion, fear, etc which are all only possible from the viewpoint of a separate self. And the arising of this is the evidence of the immaturity of non-dual insight, which means it hasn't pervaded all levels/the entirety of our consciousness. However whatever non-dual insight gained is permanent, but not necessarily the experience.

  At the medium and higher level of non-dual, the insight has penetrated deeper into our subconscious and one no longer even experiences a moment of thought of losing and regaining mindfulness of non-dual. No effort at all necessary, and also the experience of non-duality penetrates deeply into the subconscious such that one is able to experience non-dual in the dreaming and deep sleep. This must not be misunderstood as maintaining a sense of witnessing awareness in dreams and deep sleep, which is still dualistic as there is a separate perceiver watching phenomena.

  So whatever the phase of insight, it is the Insight that is important and how far the insight has penetrated into the entirety of our consciousness and replaced all bonds and propensities. It is not really about attempting to repeat a non-dual experience through concentration or letting go (however I'm not underestimating its importance especially for a beginner's phase but as one gains insight, practice becomes spontaneous and effortless) but rather a deepening of non-dual insight, and the ability to sustain non-dual experience into subtler (subconscious) states of consciousness becomes possible effortlessly as a result of these insights/realisations of what is Always So.

  Anyway the three levels of non-dual is based on the Mahamudra's classification of non-dual insights, as the lower, medium, and higher levels of One Taste. However it should be noted that in the Mahamudra classification of One Taste, it includes insight into emptiness also, so it is the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness as well as the inseparability of subject and object, awareness and phenomena. This is then corresponded to the various Bodhisattva bhumi stages (there are stages prior and after one taste, however).

  I should also mention that even though consciousness may be realised to have been non-dual from the beginning without subject/object division, it can still remain as Thusness's Stage 4 Brahman type of realisation, it is more like the ultimate Subject has never been separate from phenomena, and all phenomena are just manifestations of the Subject but there is still an unchanging Subject, ontological essence, Brahman. IT/Subject/Brahman is in union with all manifestation. This must be seen as different from the insight into Anatta where there is no Subject/agent to begin with that could be in union with manifestations, rather there is just the process, just manifestation, no Subject.

  As for conceptually understanding and non-conceptual understanding, probably a person without some experience will not be able to understand the clumsy words that are used to describe the processes. its thru some form of practice, then using the readings or teachings as a guide, manages to get some conceptual understanding then subsequently progress in one's practice until there is thorough understanding that's directly from experience. and such experience usually its tough to put into words. at the non conceptual stage probably only the skilled teachers will be able to explain using words, but then again without some experience the words take a totally different meaning.

  Can say so. Just curious, do you have a teacher?

• geis

  17 Jul 09, 07:34

  hi aen

  thanks for helping to elaborate. yes thats wat i mean, mixed up subject and object as the reference points. one is easily tricked and become confused as one begins to 'observe' the 'self' as an object. in fact it can pervade one's practice for years without realisation, and could be the toughest to see thru even when one has some non-dual experiences.

  and yes its during stressful periods that the tendencies to fall back become overwhelming that one may not be able to 'catch' it. as we practice and at the same time continue with our daily lives, work, interactions with people it does require effort initially until the tendencies diminishes as u have explained.

  no i do not have a teacher.

• An Eternal Now

  17 Jul 09, 22:33

  Originally posted by geis:

  hi aen

  thanks for helping to elaborate. yes thats wat i mean, mixed up subject and object as the reference points. one is easily tricked and become confused as one begins to 'observe' the 'self' as an object. in fact it can pervade one's practice for years without realisation, and could be the toughest to see thru even when one has some non-dual experiences.

  and yes its during stressful periods that the tendencies to fall back become overwhelming that one may not be able to 'catch' it. as we practice and at the same time continue with our daily lives, work, interactions with people it does require effort initially until the tendencies diminishes as u have explained.

  no i do not have a teacher.

  You're right. Actually daily life by itself is not a hindrance to non-dual experience. In fact after non-dual insights, especially in the beginning phase, one will be able to find it easier to experience non-dual in daily activities than in sitting meditation. In daily activities it is seen there is action and activities but no doer. Seeing, but no seer. Only when there are very extreme conditions and stress then non-duality might become 'dull' or not obvious, possibly when interacting with (undesirable, etc) people and other conditions, because of arising propensities.

  Having some non-dual experiences can still become intermittent and stage like, then in this case one has not gained any non-dual insights but has had some non-dual experiences resulting out of concentration, absorption, and dropping. When one realises non-dual (not the same as experienced nondual), it's seen that there's no uniting of subject/object - can't unite that which is already Not-Two. Then it becomes effortless.

• geis

  17 Jul 09, 23:07

  ah ok

  in other words just the experience creates a focal point which is used being applied again and again in the interpretation of the nature of 'things', which is still conceptual in nature and yet to be penetrated fully to achieve true understanding?

• An Eternal Now

  17 Jul 09, 23:24

  Originally posted by geis:

  ah ok

  in other words just the experience creates a focal point which is used being applied again and again in the interpretation of the nature of 'things', which is still conceptual in nature and yet to be penetrated fully to achieve true understanding?

  It just means, some people experience non-dual awareness intermittently, but its stage-like but not an insight.

  It's experiencing "becoming sounds, sights, etc". It's not realising "in seeing always only just scenery, never was there a seer. In hearing only always just sounds, never was there a hearer." There is no subject-object merging because there is no such divisions to begin with, no effort to bridge the gap is necessary when its realised theres no gap.

• geis

  18 Jul 09, 00:48

  the strings that tie the 'self' to experience are yet to be broken, and the knots need to be loosen. once untied, then there's no more perceived gaps, sight sees, sounds hear, thoughts think.

  while untying the strings, every phenomena still 'rings a thought' and sometimes is still conceptual in nature. then the subject (awareness) observes and catches the object in the act of creating the illusion of a gap. a split second and subtle process. and again and again.

  the strings untied whats left is just awareness. no subject, no objects, no gaps. just resting in knowing knowing and knowing unknowing.

  a very coarse description, but nontheless as 'realtime' as it gets

   

• Emanrohe

  20 Jul 09, 11:38

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  You see, you're still skewing to the other side of the equation i.e. nonconceptuality. A counter-argument to the statement that concepts cannot lead to liberation is that, while true, equally true is the other side of the equation: without conceptual understanding of right views, there cannot be liberation as well.

  I didn't say conceptual understanding alone can lead to liberation. I did not skew towards conceptuality. I am not advocating that at all, I am advocating balance and completeness of the path that Buddha preached.

  I also said, conceptual right view is part of the path that leads to liberation, but there are other conditions including mindfulness of the right view and bare attention/naked awareness.

  However, I have also warned that naked awareness alone cannot lead to liberation, and even though without establishing right views one can still give rise to the direct non-conceptual realisation of the pure I AMness, Eternal Witness, or even Non-Dual Awareness -- and YET is unable to penetrate the insights into Anatta and Emptiness. Many people even those outside of Buddhism whether from other religions or non-religious have experienced I AMness and Non-Duality, yet they have not realised Emptiness, and I've never seen any non-Buddhist that had, unfortunately. But this is not just a problem of non-Buddhist -- even more unfortunately, most Buddhists still do not see the importance of right views and the insight of non-inherency and factor that into their path. Also, you don't have to be a scholar or academic to have right view. As Loppon Namdrol once said, I can't remember the exact words: you don't have to be a scholar, but you have to have the rght understanding of emptiness.

  I must say that Tibetan Buddhism is more balanced -- not that I am a biased Tibetan Buddhist, I am still more towards Chinese Mahayana. It is not that they are more academic, but they do not miss out the importance of the empty aspect and the right views, and at the same time they also emphasize the importance of meditative training. This is just a generalisation of course -- because there are also Tibetan Buddhist particularly the Shentongpas who skew towards eternalism and luminosity and misunderstood the truth of emptiness, and also there are Zen masters who emphasize the insight of emptiness and dependent origination.

  Anyway back to topic. So you see, non-conceptual experience or insights does not necessarily mean enlightenment in the Buddhist sense. Having a direct non-conceptual experience and realisation with utter conviction without doubts of some non-conceptual reality like the experience of I AM or Non-Duality is not the same as realising emptiness. These insights concerns the luminous, cognitive aspect of Awareness but not its emptiness. Those experiences are very important, and if you still remember I have dedicated a few threads recently to just this aspect alone. Yet it is still not yet the type of realisation that is required to raise to the ranks of the Aryas. To realise emptiness, you need to have right views as a pre-condition. Having realised both luminosity and emptiness, one realises the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Both are insights important and must be seen as inseparable.

  Without right view, the path cannot be complete, therefore you must factor that conceptual understanding into the path as well, that's why it's the noble 8 fold path, and not 7 or 6 or 5. If you think right practice is possible without right view, then it is no longer in accord with Buddhadharma and Buddha who saw it as necessary and inseparable. What I'm saying is, the 8 fold path must be seen as a Whole without leaving out any parts.

  Also:

  With regards to conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality, there needs not to be understanding of the teachings conceptually first. This is because naturally the ignorant person understands his world conceptually. As such, any concepts he has(which are numerous) can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

   

  You said "can be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality", do you mean "can" or "cannot" and why?

   

  Anyway, first of all, sentient being's views is definitely different from the Buddhist's right view. They are considered wrong views. Why? Because most people have all sorts of wrong views: eternalistic views, Self-view, or nihilistic views, views of 'this exists', 'this does not exists', etc. You can never gain liberation with wrong views.

  Only Buddha's view is Right View and only by learning his Right View can it become an antidote to our problems. Buddha's Right View is the view that sees not a self, that sees not an inherent Dharma: it is the Middle Way beyond all extremes. So we must at least understand this conceptually, as it will become an antidote and raft for us to overcome our wrong views. It will become a condition to give rise to the insight of 'Non-Inherency'. When we realise that all 'selves' and 'dharmas' are not inherent, our concepts are naturally dissolve. We cannot dissolve these concepts by remaining naked in awareness alone. We have to give rise to the insight of non-inherency and one of the conditions to give rise to this insight is to establish the right view conceptually.  That is why Thusness said: That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

  p.s. sorry, I tried to update the message much earlier on but it could not display as sgForums server had some errors

  Dear Bro AEN,

  Hmmm....it seems we have an irresolvable misunderstanding..So i'll not comment further on the Right View concepts leading to enlightenment issue. Anyhow, I am not against the method that you described. It gives people a clear direction of what to expect in practice. However, just be careful not to confuse a conceptual understanding for a true insight. It can really be quite hard to differentiate without good concentration or a good teacher.

  As for why any concepts he (a person) has(which are numerous) CAN be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

  In my tradition, the Zen master would on many occasions test the students on his understanding. These occasions may be in interviews, talks, during Q&A sessions and even in the car or over a meal. What they test is attachment to concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are fine, there is actually no problem with it. But attachment to them is not fine. When there is attachment to them, the Truth is not seen. As such, the master would use any concepts the student seems to have and is attached to as a teaching tool. That's where all the Koans and Dharma Combats come from. That is what I mean.

  Dear Geis,

  From my experience, a  teacher is important. Do look for a teacher whom you can connect to and whom you feel can teach you something and you are comfortable with. Without a teacher, it is mostly a walk in the dark. Though you might eventually find your way out, it takes a super long time and many many many mistakes.

  Hmm....sorry, if I may comment, "sight sees, sounds hear, thoughts think"  is actually not so good...sight and see is already separation. Please try to just see, or just hear. Then try to eliminate seeing and hearing, just experience. This is because seeing and hearing is also differentiation. Then beyond that, it gets delicate, so please try to find a teacher.

  Metta_(|)_ :-)

• geis

  20 Jul 09, 15:49

  hi emanrohe,

  thank you for the pointers. yea i agree a teacher is essential, am actually checking the courses at kmspks.

  actually i understand (but maybe just conceptually) what u mean in ur comments. problem is maybe im too used to using the normal grammar structure of noun and verbs. i dun actually mean 'sight' as a noun or subject when i wrote 'sight sees'.

• An Eternal Now

  21 Jul 09, 12:08

  Originally posted by Emanrohe:

  Dear Bro AEN,

  Hmmm....it seems we have an irresolvable misunderstanding..So i'll not comment further on the Right View concepts leading to enlightenment issue. Anyhow, I am not against the method that you described. It gives people a clear direction of what to expect in practice. However, just be careful not to confuse a conceptual understanding for a true insight. It can really be quite hard to differentiate without good concentration or a good teacher.

  As for why any concepts he (a person) has(which are numerous) CAN be used in the realisation of nonconceptuality.

  In my tradition, the Zen master would on many occasions test the students on his understanding. These occasions may be in interviews, talks, during Q&A sessions and even in the car or over a meal. What they test is attachment to concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are fine, there is actually no problem with it. But attachment to them is not fine. When there is attachment to them, the Truth is not seen. As such, the master would use any concepts the student seems to have and is attached to as a teaching tool. That's where all the Koans and Dharma Combats come from. That is what I mean.

  I see... thats interesting, thanks for explaining