The Impermanent, Ever-Changing Self and Enlightenment

Dakini

If the Buddha taught that the self is in a constant state of change, what happens to self when it reaches Enlightenment? Does it become permanently Enlightened? Does it continue to change and evolve in some way? Or does change cease once the goal, Enlightenment, is reached? Did the Buddha's self continue to change after Awakening? If so, in what way? Or is Enlightenment the realization of Self, when mere self becomes Self?

person

@taiyaki posted something recently that had something important about this here. The part I liked that seems to fit is:

.....What Nagarjuna is pointing to is that believing things are impermanent involves a contradiction. First we posit separate, persisting things (in effect, absolute objects); and then we refer to them as impermanent (that is relative). What we fail to see is that we are still holding to a view of substance. We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness.

We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness. Nagarjuna makes it abundantly clear that impermanence (the relative) is total, complete, thoroughgoing, Absolute. It's not that the universe is made up of innumerable objects in flux. There's Only flux. Nothing is (or can be) riding along in the flux, like a cork in a stream; nothing actually arises or passes away. There's only stream.

..... That forms appear to come and go cannot be denied. But to assume the existence of imaginary persisting entities and attach them to these apparent comings and goings is delusion....

caz

If the Buddha taught that the self is in a constant state of change, what happens to self when it reaches Enlightenment? Does it become permanently Enlightened? Does it continue to change and evolve in some way? Or does change cease once the goal, Enlightenment, is reached? Did the Buddha's self continue to change after Awakening? If so, in what way? Or is Enlightenment the realization of Self, when mere self becomes Self?

Self arises due to Self grasping. Self arises particular as a delusion upon the 5 aggregates it doesn't actually exist, Self normally is a delusion that arises upon these aggregates. When we become Fully enlightened we impute a Self upon a non contaminated basis such as Emptiness which is the actual nature of phenomena.

Sabre

There is no such thing as the Buddha's 'self, or 'the self'.

Jeffrey

There only appears to be an ever-changing self. Each moment is fresh.

Lady_Alison

Is the self, the essence or being that departs after death?

Is this what you guys mean by 'self'?

Like a soul

taiyaki

@Lady_Alison

the self is a thought and at its root a misperception which causes clinging to a independent, separate, permanent, intrinsically existing entity.

experientially it is the feeling of existence/presence, mistaken for self or the symbolic assertion of "self."

there was no self to begin with. just dependently arisen phenomena.

so it is merely misperception that brings about "non enlightenment."

whereas correct perception makes everything as enlightenment by its nature.

taiyaki

@Dakini

imho the dharmakaya is the vision of everything as what the buddha was. this is conditioned appearance of existence.

there is only stream of karma manifesting due to conditions. appearing then traceless.

Lady_Alison

Sorry taiyaki I don't get it yet. Maybe I need more time reading pema chodron...I think there is something that we can not observe.

That I can doubt everything, except that I am doubting.

That to perceive is to be the perceiver.

That we can not see, point, observe the soul...because we are each of us a soul. Anima, or spirit. We see the dead empty of this at death. It doesn't mean that it is fixed or unable to change.

How does this fit into the spirit of belief in Buddhism?

Am I explaining correctly?

taiyaki

There is only perception. The perceiver is an after thought.

Directly touch this.

Bekenze

Where does this perception arise from? Conditioning, as well?

taiyaki

Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.

As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/munindra-on-anatta.html

Dakini

@Lady_Alison Don't worry if you don't get the "self, no-self" thing. It takes time. I still don't entirely get it, unless I stick to Stephen Batchelor's explanation. That much I can understand.

There only appears to be an ever-changing self. Each moment is fresh.

Yes. But is an Enlightened person's self still ever-changing? If so, in what way would it be changing? Such a person's kleshas would be gone, no more defilements, the pinnacle of spiritual evolution would have been reached, so ... what next? What avenues of change would be open to such a person?

Even the Buddha had "self"; he referred to himSelf as "The Tathagata" and used first-person pronouns, he had an everyday, functional self to which his teachings were ascribed.

(Maybe this should have gone under "Advanced Ideas", but I thought it might be considered speculative, so I put it in General Banter.)

Lady_Alison

@dakini thank you...I don't get these parts no matter how much I try but I might some day. Maybe it is my Greek philosophy studies. I just need time. Thank you all, maybe next year after I get a hang of it.

Also, no offense but you should be able to break it down to a kindergartener.

I doubt I could explanation that to a kid
...sigh

I love you guys anyway! Pizza!

Dakini

@Lady_Alison The kindergartner part is that we all have a self, and it's always learning, growing and changing. It's not set in stone. Sort of sounds obvious from a kid's perspective, doesn't it? But different Buddhist traditions explain it different ways, and that's where it gets complicated. There's also the part about not clinging to self and what self needs--"I want this, give me that, that's mine", but focussing on thinking of others. That first part might be harder for a kindergartner, though I think a lot of little kids are naturally considerate and compassionate. Isn't establishing a basic sense of identity a fundamental psychological stage? I think teaching about losing the ego would be over the head of kindergartners.

Lady_Alison

That's better! Thank you.

Lady_Alison

I believe children need a time to establish their ego first, so they know the pain of losing it later.

Theswingisyellow

@Dakini-If the Buddha taught that the self is in a constant state of change, what happens to self when it reaches Enlightenment?

There is no self nor enlightenment to reach.
A physical reference to myself or a cup is just that, a physical reference that is useful in daily life, but there is no-self in these labels.
Enlightenment/Nirvana to paraphrase Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse is beyong concepts

Dakini

hm... I had a thread recently asking what Enlightenment is. I think most contributors said it's the falling away of illusion and seeing reality as it is. The absence of clinging.

There is no self? There is no Enlightenment? Sorry, I have trouble understanding that. It sounds like Nihilism, which the Buddha wasn't keen on.

misecmisc1

DO is fine. everything arises because of its conditions existing is also fine. There is no I and everything is part of a continuous series - this is also ok.

One question arises in my mind - But how this all started? How DO started? Buddha i think said it is not a valid question as everything is dependently originated, so there is no first cause, but one cause leading to other.

But still there should have been a starting point - how does just a mental thought of clinging lead to birth - meaning how does life came into the collection of matter of 5 elements - means what gives life into the collection of matter?

But Buddha did not answered the 10 questions, which includes - whether Self is different from the body, what happens after death etc. Because these questions did not help in leading to Nirvana.

In Hinduism, YogaSutras by Patanjali says there is a True Self, which can only be directly experienced and not explained in words. It says we in our day-to-day life cannot realize our True Self because our True Self or our Consciousness identifies with the thought patterns of the mind. So after the stages of concentration leading to meditation leading to samadhi - in samadhi the observer observing the object of meditation merges into the object itself - then the object of meditation is also left, so that the True Self can be directly experienced. It cannot be explained in words because it is the 4th state called Turiya, which is beyond the 3 states of mind - conscious, active unconscious and latent unconscious and words or language was developed at conscious level, which is already transcended to reach the 2nd then 3rd then this 4th state.

Moreover, Buddha also via an example said that since the leaves in his hand were few and the leaves on the tree were lot many, so what Buddha told was few of the things he knew after getting Awakened , but there were a lot many things which he knew after getting Awakened. But he did not later told the remaining lot many things because it was not helpful in leading to Nirvana.

So in my view, only after attainment of Nirvana, the questions like whether there is any True Self different from the body, what happens after death etc can be directly experienced.

person

@Dakini The changing linear understanding of no self is only one aspect of it. There is also a more spatial? approach. Meaning apart from the moving changing part there is the part that says the self is made up of many different non self components. In every moment we've got memories, habits, senses, mental functions, the body is made up of cells, which depend upon food, which depends upon the earth and sun, which depends upon star dust, which depends upon physical laws, etc, etc.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
Carl Sagan

Understanding the two truths doctrine will probably help as well. The self, as does everything else we experience, exist but only in a conventional sense not in an ultimate one.

Jason

If the Buddha taught that the self is in a constant state of change, what happens to self when it reaches Enlightenment? Does it become permanently Enlightened? Does it continue to change and evolve in some way? Or does change cease once the goal, Enlightenment, is reached? Did the Buddha's self continue to change after Awakening? If so, in what way? Or is Enlightenment the realization of Self, when mere self becomes Self?

The short answer is, the Buddha didn't teach a doctrine of self at all. In MN 22, for example, the Buddha states that he doesn't "envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair." From the Buddhist point of view, our sense of self is contingent upon clinging to one or more of the five aggregates at any given point in time in a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109). I think Thanissaro sums up the Buddha's attitude towards selfhood well in his short book Selves & Not-selves:

One misinterpretation is that the Buddha’s not-self teaching is aimed
specifically at negating the view of self proposed in the Brahmanical
Upanishads—that the self is permanent, cosmic, and identical with God—but the
Buddha is not negating the fact that we each have an individual self. In other
words, he’s saying, Yes, you have an individual self, but, No, you don’t have a
cosmic/God self.

The second misinterpretation is the exact opposite: The Buddha is negating
the idea that you have a small, separate self, but he’s affirming the existence of a
large, interconnected, cosmic self. In other words, he’s saying, Yes, you do have
a connected self, but, No, you don’t have a separate self.

The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea
that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation,
the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five
aggregates don’t really qualify to be called a self because they aren’t permanent.
They’re just processes. In other words, No, you don’t have a self, but, Yes,
you’re a bunch of processes; the aggregates are what you are.

None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha’s actual teachings, or his
actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They
misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons—the fact that they give an
analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside—and for reasons of
content: They don’t fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic
of self and not-self.

And he goes on to explain why each of these interpretations misses the mark if you're interested in reading the whole thing.

Cinorjer

What happens to the self when you're enlightened? The self doesn't go anywhere, because enlightenment is not something you acquire, it's a letting go. Enlightenment is what is left when you take away the selfish desires and what we call "defilements" of anger, etc.

Enlightenment is your ordinary mind, nothing more or less. It's not something that arrives from outside the mind, or some supernatural event. It's just you, whatever you are, in all your Buddhahood glory. It is there right now. All beings have Buddha Nature.

That was your Zen moment of fresh air. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

AMH

Yes. But is an Enlightened person's self still ever-changing? If so, in what way would it be changing? Such a person's kleshas would be gone, no more defilements, the pinnacle of spiritual evolution would have been reached, so ... what next? What avenues of change would be open to such a person?

Ok jumping in the middle so I have no idea what else has been said (short attention span).

Here is my idea, once a person reaches enlightenment then they are no longer separate or have the understanding of separateness. So they need to function if on earth as "I" and "me" but they experience that as not real.

Then what comes next? Are they evolving? I say yes but it may be so far beyond our comprehension until we are actually there.

For those who believe in reincarnation let's think of a dog. They are living with and among humans usually and they hear us speak. They hear a baby babble and older people make coherent speech and then in old age sometimes we babble again. Do they know the difference of this speech or do they just understand at some evolutionary point they will get to speech?They may have a hint, adults give commands and babies don't, but they most likely aren't getting this idea that attaining speech is just step one, and we would not expect them to get more than that.

It is a crude analogy but I think that there is ongoing evolution and enlightened beings around us going through that evolution but we are just not there.

Theswingisyellow

hm... I had a thread recently asking what Enlightenment is. I think most contributors said it's the falling away of illusion and seeing reality as it is. The absence of clinging.

There is no self? There is no Enlightenment? Sorry, I have trouble understanding that. It sounds like Nihilism, which the Buddha wasn't keen on.

Not Nihilism at all.
Just annata. Form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness are not-self.
I would still maintain that enlightenment is something beyond conceptual ideas. Any concept I hold of this term isn't going to be "it" and besides I am not so concerned whether I reach this goal or not.
I don't try to define self, the Buddha didn't, he only defined what is not-self.

Dakini

What happens to the self when you're enlightened? The self doesn't go anywhere, because enlightenment is not something you acquire, it's a letting go. Enlightenment is what is left when you take away the selfish desires and what we call "defilements" of anger, etc.

Enlightenment is your ordinary mind, nothing more or less. It's not something that arrives from outside the mind, or some supernatural event. It's just you, whatever you are, in all your Buddhahood glory. It is there right now. All beings have Buddha Nature.

That was your Zen moment of fresh air. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

*BREATHE* ahhhh... Thanks for the oxygen, Cinorjer. This much, I can get my mind around.

Understanding the two truths doctrine will probably help as well. The self, as does everything else we experience, exist but only in a conventional sense not in an ultimate one.

Right. So the conventional self just keeps right on trucking, like Cinorjer said. It becomes a self without illusions and without clinging to itself, but it keeps signing the checks for the monthly bills, it keeps functioning in the world. Like Jack Kornfield famously said, "After Enlightenment, the laundry". ...right?

Thank you Jason, I'll look into that, and thank you everyone.

person

Understanding the two truths doctrine will probably help as well. The self, as does everything else we experience, exist but only in a conventional sense not in an ultimate one.

Right. So the conventional self just keeps right on trucking, like Cinorjer said. It becomes a self without illusions and without clinging to itself, but it keeps signing the checks for the monthly bills, it keeps functioning in the world. Like Jack Kornfield famously said, "After Enlightenment, the laundry". ...right?

Right, but its not a 'thing' per se, but more of an interrelated process. So its not nihilism, its more of a massively interdependent, swarming mass of bubbling potential.

Dakini

:scratch: I'll work on that, @person. Our mundane selves are dependently arisen, but there is still someone there who carries the name "person" and signs his legal name on checks. But his existence as such depends on everyone around him seeing him and acknowledging him, accepting his check, etc. So we're all co-recognizing each other and participating in this web of dependent origination, dependent on each other. So in order to function in the world, we're allowing each other to utilize this mundane "self" concept. ...?

person

:scratch: I'll work on that, @person. Our mundane selves are dependently arisen, but there is still someone there who carries the name "person" and signs his legal name on checks. But his existence as such depends on everyone around him seeing him and acknowledging him, accepting his check, etc. So we're all co-recognizing each other and participating in this web of dependent origination, dependent on each other. So in order to function in the world, we're allowing each other to utilize this mundane "self" concept. ...?

Yeah, its not just other people though, its things as well.

Take the old saying about a tree falling in the forest. Normally we think that a sound exists and we hear it. In DO though a sound requires several factors the tree falling to create the sound waves, air for the sound waves to move in, an ear to recieve the sound waves, and a brain to interpret the waves and call it a sound.

So its not that sound, or a self, doesn't happen, it simply doesn't happen on its own.

Dakini

Yes, I understand it's things, it's all of life as we know it. Let me work on this little corner of it for awhile, though.
Nice explanation of the tree, etc., though.

Jeffrey

@Lady_Alison Don't worry if you don't get the "self, no-self" thing. It takes time. I still don't entirely get it, unless I stick to Stephen Batchelor's explanation. That much I can understand.

There only appears to be an ever-changing self. Each moment is fresh.

Yes. But is an Enlightened person's self still ever-changing? If so, in what way would it be changing? Such a person's kleshas would be gone, no more defilements, the pinnacle of spiritual evolution would have been reached, so ... what next? What avenues of change would be open to such a person?

Even the Buddha had "self"; he referred to himSelf as "The Tathagata" and used first-person pronouns, he had an everyday, functional self to which his teachings were ascribed.

(Maybe this should have gone under "Advanced Ideas", but I thought it might be considered speculative, so I put it in General Banter.)

@Dakini, the Buddha changes conditions in an enlightened way. I don't know what clinging is. I am stuck in a holding pattern. The Buddha doesn't just power through ignoring the radio control tower. According to our forum the self is empty of anything graspable as a self. But we still recognize phenomena. So when a rangtongpa says that shentongpas cling to a self the question arises, well how do they recognize that clinging of the shentongpas? How do they see that? Who sees that? You could just say there is seeing. Which is undeniable. Both schools agree. But a eye substrate and mind substrate are postulated even though those two must also be empty.

So what are these distortions that do not allow seeing? If we could see then couldn't we help each other accurately? Do you believe that a group can be more accurate than one person? For example if a group of 100 people are asked the temperature of the air do you think the average of those guesses would be closer than the guess of one solo person?

But how satisfying is just knowing the temperature? Where is the heart there? Oh good it's snowing and below 32. How can knowing be satisfying? What's next? Winter is known. What next? Ok now it's spring. What next?

taiyaki

@jeffrey

The shentongpas equal the experiential view point whereas the rangtongpas view point is purely philosophical. Both compliment each other. This is something that i read. Interesting stuff

patbb

Right. So the conventional self just keeps right on trucking, like Cinorjer said. It becomes a self without illusions and without clinging to itself, but it keeps signing the checks for the monthly bills,

well im not there yet, but I think the illusion is broken. there is no more self to keep on trucking.

all that is left is a collection of processed DO'ed without anyone.
but nothing changes, nothing has been destroyed or killed, only a realization of the way it always been.

just like a forest.
just a contained echo system.

this is how i understand "i am the forest".
since i can observe the processes that happen in the forest, just like i can observe the processes happening inside of me.
Therefore if i'm me, im also the forest, the bird, the annoying sound etc...


this is find somewhat scary (yes i know, there is no one to be scare, only fear arising, but im not there yet

patbb

*all that is left is a collection of processes DO'ed without anyone.

Invincible_summer

Some Zen (maybe Soto?) schools say that zazen is itself Enlightenment. So when we end our zazen session, would that mean that Enlightenment has followed the "law" of impermanence and dissipated, and we will only "achieve" it again the next time we zazen?

Cinorjer

Some Zen (maybe Soto?) schools say that zazen is itself Enlightenment. So when we end our zazen session, would that mean that Enlightenment has followed the "law" of impermanence and dissipated, and we will only "achieve" it again the next time we zazen?

The same school tried to teach that zazen does not begin and end on the zafu cushion. It's where the "when washing dishes, just wash dishes" comes from.

Invincible_summer

Some Zen (maybe Soto?) schools say that zazen is itself Enlightenment. So when we end our zazen session, would that mean that Enlightenment has followed the "law" of impermanence and dissipated, and we will only "achieve" it again the next time we zazen?

The same school tried to teach that zazen does not begin and end on the zafu cushion. It's where the "when washing dishes, just wash dishes" comes from.

I guess my question at the core is: if Mahayana schools state that we all have Buddha nature, how does impermanence come into play? Is Buddha nature permanent? This has always confused me.

taiyaki

Buddha nature is the impermanence.

The impermanence of all appearances are completely permanent.

Cinorjer

Some Zen (maybe Soto?) schools say that zazen is itself Enlightenment. So when we end our zazen session, would that mean that Enlightenment has followed the "law" of impermanence and dissipated, and we will only "achieve" it again the next time we zazen?

The same school tried to teach that zazen does not begin and end on the zafu cushion. It's where the "when washing dishes, just wash dishes" comes from.

I guess my question at the core is: if Mahayana schools state that we all have Buddha nature, how does impermanence come into play? Is Buddha nature permanent? This has always confused me.

I'm afraid I can't pin your answer down in words that will make any sense. I'm just not that skilled. @taiyaki is giving it a good try, I see. Saying something is impermanent is a good starting point, but it's still dividing the world into dualistic appearances. Reality is in constant motion, constantly changing, and Buddha Nature is being this reality completely. But that's not it, either, because Buddha Nature is not a thing. It is as real as an idea, an understanding, and just as empty.

See what I mean? I just go around in circles. It's like trying to answer the question, "How far is up?"

patbb

Some Zen (maybe Soto?) schools say that zazen is itself Enlightenment. So when we end our zazen session, would that mean that Enlightenment has followed the "law" of impermanence and dissipated, and we will only "achieve" it again the next time we zazen?

i believe what these schools are teaching is that we are all already enlighten.
but
we didn't realize it yet.

the problem with just hearing the first part of this sentence is that people think things like "if we are all already enlighten, whats the point of meditating and doing all of this work?"

because we didn't realize it yet, and it is this realization that will free you.

Invincible_summer

Buddha nature is the impermanence.

The impermanence of all appearances are completely permanent.

You're good

KarunaDharmakaya

The nirvana sutra teaches the True self,
And tathagatagarbha(buddha natura)is empty of everthing but itself :not truely empty.

Dakini

The nirvana sutra teaches the True self,
And tathagatagarbha(buddha natura)is empty of everthing but itself :not truely empty.

Thanks for this. It's quite fascinating. It says the Buddha taught that after non-self is realized, the Bliss state is True Self. The Nirvana Sutra is said to be among his last teachings, a few months before his death.

http://nirvanasutra.net
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_Sutra

upekka

in this thread you can read 'names' like Dakini, KarunaDharmakaya, Jeffrey, Ladyalison, Upekka etc.

what happens is you see 'red' colour and shapes like D, a, k, i, n, etc.
someone has taught you how to pronounce those shapes using your mouth and that someone names 'they' are 'letters' when they come together that is a 'word'

now you can see the word 'Dakini' and there is no need to reminds your mind a word is a collection of letters and what you see is a word call 'Dakini'

Do you stay there?
or
Do your mind say that 'aha, that is the person Dakini' ?

if you listened to what your mind say, then you want to know wht the person Dakini has to say?

so you read on

Can you see that as soon as you listened to what your mind has said you were decieved?

now, whatever you are doing (reading, then thinking over what you read, answering back etc.) all are based on a depception


Reading the word 'Dakini' the mind create a person and 'that person' is in the mind

individual has different minds so diffent persons have different 'Dakini' in their minds

this created person is the perception

and

we build our world on these type of perception


i took 'Dakini' as example so no offence Dakini

KarunaDharmakaya

Words are a discriminationand words themselves are based on duality lankavatara sutra

With that said what are you getting at?
Peace and Love

xabir

Sorry taiyaki I don't get it yet. Maybe I need more time reading pema chodron...I think there is something that we can not observe.

That I can doubt everything, except that I am doubting.

That to perceive is to be the perceiver.

That we can not see, point, observe the soul...because we are each of us a soul. Anima, or spirit. We see the dead empty of this at death. It doesn't mean that it is fixed or unable to change.

How does this fit into the spirit of belief in Buddhism?

Am I explaining correctly?

So you have realized the doubtless Self or are you speaking from learnt knowledge? Ken Wilber talks about this doutbless I AM then proceeds to Non Dual (but did not speak about anatta):



Anyhow, Malcolm points out the emptiness of luminous clarity which is where anatta/emptiness teachings come in.

gad rgyangs wrote:

there is the irreducible presence of the here and now where we find ourselves.

Malcolm (loppon namdrol) wrote:

It's reducible, thank goodness.

In any event, what you are talking about is the famous "clarity" aspect of the mind, the famed Descartes trope, "I can doubt everything but that fact that I am doubting". But this hardly constitutes "the fact of the existent".

.............

In Thusness 7 Stages of Enlightenment: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

I AM/Brahman alone is real = Stage 1~2
Non-Dual insight/Brahman is the World = Stage 4
'Luminous clarity is reducible' (anatta and emptiness) = Stage 5 and 6

KarunaDharmakaya

Hey xabir
Anatta is not self or not the self
Which states the 5 aggregates are what is considered the self(false self)

What emptiness are you talking about there are like 12 i can think of?

xabir

You may be interested in reading this article I wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

As for emptiness, if you directly realize emptiness (as opposed to a mere intellectual understanding of it) you understand all. It is the nature of everything, including non-dual awareness, to be empty of any true existence (or a Self) that can be pinned down.

“All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever.” ~ Third Karmapa

Similarly the Prajnaparamita sutras state in a similar vein: "The mind is no-mind (empty of mind). The nature of the mind is luminosity."

Check out this article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

Also, as what Thusness (John) said last month:

6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness
6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe.
6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else.
6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind.
6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus.
6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath..
6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment.

xabir

If the Buddha taught that the self is in a constant state of change, what happens to self when it reaches Enlightenment? Does it become permanently Enlightened? Does it continue to change and evolve in some way? Or does change cease once the goal, Enlightenment, is reached? Did the Buddha's self continue to change after Awakening? If so, in what way? Or is Enlightenment the realization of Self, when mere self becomes Self?

It is not right to say 'self' (no such self can be pinned down as a reality or truth*), it is more appropriate to say the manifestations and aggregation of various mental/sensate experiences (without an experiencer) continue to manifest even after awakening, except they are no longer tainted by afflictions - passion, aggression and delusion. This is nirvana as taught by the Buddha: the termination of passion, aggression, and delusion.

This termination/cessation of afflictions (nirvana) in one who is liberated, is not something that alters - like the flame that is blown out, will not return. It is due to the absence of any afflictions (passion, aggression and delusion) that there is no more causes and conditions for afflictive birth and suffering - those afflictive causes have been terminated, like the fuel for the flame has been spent. As the Buddha teaches, craving has been terminated and uprooted, in his own words, "And how does a monk not burn? There is the case where a monk's conceit of 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk doesn't burn."

Wisdom continues, but not as an unchanging thing but like a stream that flows uninterruptedly. In one who has completely awakened, wisdom will never be lost under all circumstances.

As for wheter Buddha's enlightenment is the realization of Self when mere self becomes Self, the answer is not exactly so. Buddha's enlightenment is not that of Hinduism's atman-brahman - do read Thusness's seven stages of enlightenment http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html . This is not the denial of luminous clarity - which is reified as a Self - but pointing out the empty nature of luminous clarity.


*Buddha clarifies:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...

And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:

As Chandrakirti states:

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

And Padmasambhava states:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."


And Nagarjuna states:

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”

KarunaDharmakaya

You may be interested in reading this article I wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

As for emptiness, if you directly realize emptiness (as opposed to a mere intellectual understanding of it) you understand all. It is the nature of everything, including non-dual awareness, to be empty of any true existence (or a Self)

Hey xabir

So is enlightenment empty of itself?
Its empty of sufferinf/false self/samsara
But is enlightenment empty of enlightenment?

xabir

Hey xabir

So is enlightenment empty of itself?
Its empty of sufferinf/false self/samsara
But is enlightenment empty of enlightenment?

Yes, enlightenment is empty. Even Nirvana is empty.

I like the way Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā sutra puts it:

"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."400 A Bodhisattva is a mere dream. Even the Buddha is only a name. Even the Perfect Wisdom itself is a mere name. Dreams, echoes, reflections, images, mirage, illusion, magic, void—such are all objects of intellect.

‘the Large sutra on Perfect Wisdom’ is also expressed the same idea:

"What is the emptiness of ultimate reality? "Ultimate reality" means Nirvāṇa. And that Nirvāṇa is empty of Nirvāṇa, on account of its being neither unmoved nor destroyed. For such is its essential nature".410