Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
your objection is against Buddha's teachings rather than trying to sectarianise "Theravada". Buddha extensively referred to 'internal' and 'external' sense bases & aggregates. your continual reference to 'subject' & 'object' has no basis in Buddha's teachings. this is Hinduism
Buddha did not teach about 'subject' & 'object'. the continual reference to "subject" has no basis in the reality of sense awareness (apart from being another term for "self").
Buddha explained 'sense organ' & 'sense object'. Buddha did not teach non-duality. in fact, buddha taught duality, where he referred to the internal group (kaya) of aggregates & the external body-minds (nama-rupa) which form a duality or dyad
Now there is both this kaya (group; collection) and external name-&-form. Here, in dependence on this duality, there is contact at the six senses.
Internal and external are fine conventions with me. I do not posit some universal consciousness. Obviously, conventionally speaking your mindstream and my mindstream are distinguishable.
Subject (a perceiver, self) and object (something that can be truly established) don't apply nonetheless in direct experience which is only the 'suchness' of cognizing, seeing, etc spoken in Kalaka Sutta.
Internal and external are fine conventions with me.
they are not conventions. they are realities. the food 'out there' will never enter your mouth until the arm reaches out, grabs it & places in the mouth. you will die from starvation in a non-duality illusion if you believe your body & bananas on a tree are non-dual
each morning, monks walk miles to find alms food, so their life can be sustained
I do not posit some universal consciousness.
who said you did?
Obviously, conventionally speaking your mindstream and my mindstream are distinguishable.
no. ultimately they are distinguishable. example, mind of buddha has no greed, hatred & delusion. mind of ordinary person has greed, hatred & delusion. mind of buddha cannot practise samatha & vipassana that results in the greed, hatred & delusion of the other mind to extinguish
but now you seem to posit some universal consciousness; like Brahman that pervades all things
Subject (a perceiver, self) and object (something that can be truly established) don't apply nonetheless in direct experience which is only the 'suchness' of cognizing, seeing, etc spoken in Kalaka Sutta
self does not perceive. buddha taught perception aggregate (sanna khandha) perceives. 'suchness' does not extinguish objects. suchness just discerns things as they are. the Kakaka Sutta does not infer what you are inferring
buddha taught:
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.
Any perception whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every perception is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception.
xabir. I really do appreciate your post... but you are 20 years
Just turned 22 a few days ago. I wonder how this matters though. In the Pali suttas, as I recall there were at least 2 instances where 7 year old monks became Arahant. To prove to his students that these 7 year old monks were worthy and highly qualified to be teachers and should not be looked down upon, the Buddha asked the 7 year old Arahant a number of deep dharma questions, in which the 7 year old Arahant was able to answer consistently without any issues at all. People were amazed as a result and grew confident of this monk. This 7 year old Arahant was the teacher of many (of which many also became arahants).
Anyway my point is not that I am a 7 year old Arahant and I am not even claiming to be a qualified teacher or someone very knowledgeable etc... but the point is that spiritual insight is not dependent on age.
What is dependent on age is life wisdom. I cannot claim to have a lot of life wisdom like you do, nonetheless life wisdom is not spiritual or prajna wisdom, and prajna wisdom is not equivalent to life wisdom which grows over time.
There were people who advised me that I have to go through life and learn... etc. I have no problems with such statements, except that those teachers who advise me on this usually do not understand the insight I have written. For example they are at the I AM phase of insight, and then they try to integrate that I AM realization by grounding it in daily activities and so on.
Integration is important at any stage of insight... from I AM to non dual to anatta, etc. But without going through anatta or the twofold emptiness, it is not possible to discover the path to liberation. By gaining right view through realization, one is able to see how nothing is fit for clinging... not even a Witness or a non-dual awareness. Everything is empty of self, ephemeral, insubstantial. Therefore, one naturally inclines towards dispassion, lack of clinging, lack of craving, thus one has attained the right view and known the right path towards liberation from all clinging towards the five aggregates.
For example, if you are at the I AM insight level for example... your practice is not inclined towards lack of clinging. Why? Due to your view of an existent self, your practice is entirely geared towards clinging on the Ground that manifest infinite potentiality in activities... so you try to ground in the ground of being in the midst of activities. Nonetheless you will not be able to overcome the grasping to Self. Even at the substantial non-dual level of insight, one still clings to the non-dual awareness as it is seen as a substantial substratum of things.
By applying and integrating the insight of twofold emptiness, relinquishing all attachments of 'I' and 'mine' in every life situation, one starts to experience a freedom and does not get caught up in the positives and negatives, gain and loss, and so forth of everyday life (speaking from my limited experience).
Dharma is not apart from everyday life, but right view is still foremost.. otherwise one is practicing blindly, not knowing the path to liberation. And right view is highly lacking nowadays... therefore I try to publish whatever I experienced as fast as possible in hopes that it can benefit whoever reads it. Maybe I might write another book when my experience and wisdom gets matured... but I do not think I will withhold my writings and knowledge.
Internal and external are fine conventions with me.
they are not conventions. they are realities. the food 'out there' will never enter your mouth until the arm reaches out, grabs it & places in the mouth. you will die from starvation in a non-duality illusion if you believe your body & bananas on a tree are non-dual
each morning, monks walk miles to find alms food, so their life can be sustained
I do not posit some universal consciousness.
who said you did?
Obviously, conventionally speaking your mindstream and my mindstream are distinguishable.
no. ultimately they are distinguishable. example, mind of buddha has no greed, hatred & delusion. mind of ordinary person has greed, hatred & delusion. mind of buddha cannot practise samatha & vipassana that results in the greed, hatred & delusion of the other mind to extinguish
but now you seem to posit some universal consciousness; like Brahman that pervades all things
Subject (a perceiver, self) and object (something that can be truly established) don't apply nonetheless in direct experience which is only the 'suchness' of cognizing, seeing, etc spoken in Kalaka Sutta
self does not perceive. buddha taught perception aggregate (sanna khandha) perceives. 'suchness' does not extinguish objects. suchness just discerns things as they are. the Kakaka Sutta does not infer what you are inferring
buddha taught:
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.
Any perception whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every perception is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception.
how could you when you just posted the "self" is the "perceiver"? :wtf:
"self" is simply a fabrication of the mind overwelmed by defilement
thus you do not understand my view point because you believe self creates defilement and because you believe in the Hindu 'Self' (atman)
you believer there can be grasping to Self
'selfing' has grasping as its condition, i.e., becoming & birth have grasping as their condition. thus there cannot be grasping to self because grasping creates self.
there can only be grasping things (sense objects) as 'self'
The so called I AM is in actuality just one empty dhatu, and is not self. But at that point it does seem like Self.
Thusness:
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.
The so called I AM is in actuality just one empty dhatu, and is not self. But at that point it does seem like Self.
no
the so called I AM is a holy word found in the Bible & in Hinduism
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”
Hinduism
purest identity.
Hinduism
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."
The so called I AM is in actuality just one empty dhatu, and is not self. But at that point it does seem like Self.
no
the so called I AM is a holy word found in the Bible & in Hinduism
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”
Hinduism
purest identity.
Hinduism
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."
there is a true experience of a mind dhatu, but it was misinterpreted as I AM.
makes no sense at all. a "true experience" cannot be something "misinterpreted"
anyway, I AM out of here :wave:
Yes. An analogy for the common man:
There is a true experience of seeing a sense object. Then proliferation of 'I', mine, craving after the sense object arises as an after-thought of the true experience. It is not the seeing that is the problem, it is the after-thought or proliferation or craving that is a problem.
Similarly, the I AM seems transcendental. But it is just the direct experience of the luminosity of mind aggregate and not actually a self (but after that moment of realization gets distorted by wrong views). In actuality, nothing ultimate and nothing special. All aggregates are equally empty of self.
xabir. I really do appreciate your post... but you are 20 years
Just turned 22 a few days ago. I wonder how this matters though. In the Pali suttas, as I recall there were at least 2 instances where 7 year old monks became Arahant. To prove to his students that these 7 year old monks were worthy and highly qualified to be teachers and should not be looked down upon, the Buddha asked the 7 year old Arahant a number of deep dharma questions, in which the 7 year old Arahant was able to answer consistently without any issues at all. People were amazed as a result and grew confident of this monk. This 7 year old Arahant was the teacher of many (of which many also became arahants).
Anyway my point is not that I am a 7 year old Arahant and I am not even claiming to be a qualified teacher or someone very knowledgeable etc... but the point is that spiritual insight is not dependent on age.
What is dependent on age is life wisdom. I cannot claim to have a lot of life wisdom like you do, nonetheless life wisdom is not spiritual or prajna wisdom, and prajna wisdom is not equivalent to life wisdom which grows over time.
There were people who advised me that I have to go through life and learn... etc. I have no problems with such statements, except that those teachers who advise me on this usually do not understand the insight I have written. For example they are at the I AM phase of insight, and then they try to integrate that I AM realization by grounding it in daily activities and so on.
Integration is important at any stage of insight... from I AM to non dual to anatta, etc. But without going through anatta or the twofold emptiness, it is not possible to discover the path to liberation. By gaining right view through realization, one is able to see how nothing is fit for clinging... not even a Witness or a non-dual awareness. Everything is empty of self, ephemeral, insubstantial. Therefore, one naturally inclines towards dispassion, lack of clinging, lack of craving, thus one has attained the right view and known the right path towards liberation from all clinging towards the five aggregates.
For example, if you are at the I AM insight level for example... your practice is not inclined towards lack of clinging. Why? Due to your view of an existent self, your practice is entirely geared towards clinging on the Ground that manifest infinite potentiality in activities... so you try to ground in the ground of being in the midst of activities. Nonetheless you will not be able to overcome the grasping to Self. Even at the substantial non-dual level of insight, one still clings to the non-dual awareness as it is seen as a substantial substratum of things.
By applying and integrating the insight of twofold emptiness, relinquishing all attachments of 'I' and 'mine' in every life situation, one starts to experience a freedom and does not get caught up in the positives and negatives, gain and loss, and so forth of everyday life (speaking from my limited experience).
Dharma is not apart from everyday life, but right view is still foremost.. otherwise one is practicing blindly, not knowing the path to liberation. And right view is highly lacking nowadays... therefore I try to publish whatever I experienced as fast as possible in hopes that it can benefit whoever reads it. Maybe I might write another book when my experience and wisdom gets matured... but I do not think I will withhold my writings and knowledge.
It seems wisdom can be defined in different ways... The wise people I have known have a certain quality. Maybe it could be described ....poetically speaking.. as the ongoing realization of not having life tied in a perfect Dharmic bow..... the non-duality of that, of not-having-life-tied-in-a-perfect-Dharmic-bow. There is something very mundane about it, and at the same time completely ineffable and beyond the beyond.... just speaking poetically. I appreciate knowledge and insights and clear comprehension of the Dharma.... and seeing that presented with skill. But I am also appreciating more and more the advice I got from my first Zen teacher.. "Just sit".
I appreciate the 'mundane and ordinariness' of Zen... but I also appreciate clear concise view and knowledge of Dharma.
As Thusness used to say, Zen emphasizes experience, Madyamika emphasize view, but both are important and must be complemented. (That said I do find Madyamika somewhat too theoretical)
As I and Thusness often say: experience, realization, and view. These three cannot be missed and must be actualized in every moment.
I think Hakuun Yasutani (I don't know if you read his books before, I found 'Flowers Fall' a great intro to Dogen) was criticizing those Soto Zen-nists who downplayed realization, or downplayed certain aspects... all three are important. IMO it was good criticism.
I appreciate the 'mundane and ordinariness' of Zen... but I also appreciate clear concise view and knowledge of Dharma.
As Thusness used to say, Zen emphasizes experience, Madyamika emphasize view, but both are important and must be complemented. (That said I do find Madyamika somewhat too theoretical)
As I and Thusness often say: experience, realization, and view. These three cannot be missed and must be actualized in every moment.
I think Hakuun Yasutani (I don't know if you read his books before, I found 'Flowers Fall' a great intro to Dogen) was criticizing those Soto Zen-nists who downplayed realization, or downplayed certain aspects... all three are important. IMO it was good criticism.
Agreed.. My personal favourite (book) is "Tracing back the radiance: Chinul's Korean way of Zen" Translated by Robert Buswell. It struck the balance that rang true for me.
i found this website just intellectual. it seems to takes an assortment of spiritual concepts from different traditions and mentally proliferates about them. in buddhism, such discursive mental proliferation is called papanca
for example, "no-mind" is a Zen concept but it is not Pali "anatta"
for example, "sunyata" is not the "transcendance" of self but an emptiness (absence) of self. "transcendence" is "lokuttara", which means "above the world". the enlightened mind still lives in the world but remains unaffected by the world. so the enlightened mind is sunyata (absent of "self") & is transcendent ("unaffected by the world").
for example, "The Realization of I AM" is a Hindu concept.
this website appears mere intellectualism, the product of infatuation & stuck in "self"
i found this website just intellectual. it seems to takes an assortment of spiritual concepts from different traditions and mentally proliferates about them. in buddhism, such discursive mental proliferation is called papanca
for example, "no-mind" is a Zen concept but it is not Pali "anatta"
for example, "sunyata" is not the "transcendance" of self but an emptiness (absence) of self. "transcendence" is "lokuttara", which means "above the world". the enlightened mind still lives in the world but remains unaffected by the world. so the enlightened mind is sunyata (absent of "self") & is transcendent ("unaffected by the world").
for example, "The Realization of I AM" is a Hindu concept.
this website appears mere intellectualism, the product of infatuation & stuck in "self"
1) I have experienced everything I wrote
2) No-mind is an experience, not a concept. But you are right that it is not the realization of anatta, therefore I said that even the experience of No Mind is *not* liberating. It is not particularly Zen because people from all traditions have experienced it, but may not have called it 'No Mind'. And anyway I do not see a problem with 'Zen' - you do, and thats your problem.
3) Absent and transcendent of the sense of self is what I mean. In sunyata, there is NO sense of self at all.
4) I already said Realization of I AM is a Hindu experience (not concept). Though it is common among Buddhists as well.
In short, before you experienced anything I wrote, it is best not to comment. As I only comment on what I have experienced and know for a fact.
Comments
Subject (a perceiver, self) and object (something that can be truly established) don't apply nonetheless in direct experience which is only the 'suchness' of cognizing, seeing, etc spoken in Kalaka Sutta.
each morning, monks walk miles to find alms food, so their life can be sustained who said you did? no. ultimately they are distinguishable. example, mind of buddha has no greed, hatred & delusion. mind of ordinary person has greed, hatred & delusion. mind of buddha cannot practise samatha & vipassana that results in the greed, hatred & delusion of the other mind to extinguish
but now you seem to posit some universal consciousness; like Brahman that pervades all things self does not perceive. buddha taught perception aggregate (sanna khandha) perceives. 'suchness' does not extinguish objects. suchness just discerns things as they are. the Kakaka Sutta does not infer what you are inferring
buddha taught: 'just perception' = suchness
Anyway my point is not that I am a 7 year old Arahant and I am not even claiming to be a qualified teacher or someone very knowledgeable etc... but the point is that spiritual insight is not dependent on age.
What is dependent on age is life wisdom. I cannot claim to have a lot of life wisdom like you do, nonetheless life wisdom is not spiritual or prajna wisdom, and prajna wisdom is not equivalent to life wisdom which grows over time.
There were people who advised me that I have to go through life and learn... etc. I have no problems with such statements, except that those teachers who advise me on this usually do not understand the insight I have written. For example they are at the I AM phase of insight, and then they try to integrate that I AM realization by grounding it in daily activities and so on.
Integration is important at any stage of insight... from I AM to non dual to anatta, etc. But without going through anatta or the twofold emptiness, it is not possible to discover the path to liberation. By gaining right view through realization, one is able to see how nothing is fit for clinging... not even a Witness or a non-dual awareness. Everything is empty of self, ephemeral, insubstantial. Therefore, one naturally inclines towards dispassion, lack of clinging, lack of craving, thus one has attained the right view and known the right path towards liberation from all clinging towards the five aggregates.
For example, if you are at the I AM insight level for example... your practice is not inclined towards lack of clinging. Why? Due to your view of an existent self, your practice is entirely geared towards clinging on the Ground that manifest infinite potentiality in activities... so you try to ground in the ground of being in the midst of activities. Nonetheless you will not be able to overcome the grasping to Self. Even at the substantial non-dual level of insight, one still clings to the non-dual awareness as it is seen as a substantial substratum of things.
By applying and integrating the insight of twofold emptiness, relinquishing all attachments of 'I' and 'mine' in every life situation, one starts to experience a freedom and does not get caught up in the positives and negatives, gain and loss, and so forth of everyday life (speaking from my limited experience).
Dharma is not apart from everyday life, but right view is still foremost.. otherwise one is practicing blindly, not knowing the path to liberation. And right view is highly lacking nowadays... therefore I try to publish whatever I experienced as fast as possible in hopes that it can benefit whoever reads it. Maybe I might write another book when my experience and wisdom gets matured... but I do not think I will withhold my writings and knowledge.
No, I do not posit a Brahman that pervades all things. Those days are gone after I realized 'anatta'.
"self" is simply a fabrication of the mind overwelmed by defilement
thus you do not understand my view point because you believe self creates defilement and because you believe in the Hindu 'Self' (atman)
you believer there can be grasping to Self
'selfing' has grasping as its condition, i.e., becoming & birth have grasping as their condition. thus there cannot be grasping to self because grasping creates self.
there can only be grasping things (sense objects) as 'self'
Thusness:
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.
the so called I AM is a holy word found in the Bible & in Hinduism Hinduism Hinduism
In other words, there is a true experience of a mind dhatu, but it was misinterpreted as I AM.
anyway, I AM out of here :wave:
There is a true experience of seeing a sense object. Then proliferation of 'I', mine, craving after the sense object arises as an after-thought of the true experience. It is not the seeing that is the problem, it is the after-thought or proliferation or craving that is a problem.
Similarly, the I AM seems transcendental. But it is just the direct experience of the luminosity of mind aggregate and not actually a self (but after that moment of realization gets distorted by wrong views). In actuality, nothing ultimate and nothing special. All aggregates are equally empty of self.
It seems wisdom can be defined in different ways... The wise people I have known have a certain quality. Maybe it could be described ....poetically speaking.. as the ongoing realization of not having life tied in a perfect Dharmic bow..... the non-duality of that, of not-having-life-tied-in-a-perfect-Dharmic-bow. There is something very mundane about it, and at the same time completely ineffable and beyond the beyond.... just speaking poetically. I appreciate knowledge and insights and clear comprehension of the Dharma.... and seeing that presented with skill. But I am also appreciating more and more the advice I got from my first Zen teacher.. "Just sit".
This is all of course just IMHO.
As Thusness used to say, Zen emphasizes experience, Madyamika emphasize view, but both are important and must be complemented. (That said I do find Madyamika somewhat too theoretical)
As I and Thusness often say: experience, realization, and view. These three cannot be missed and must be actualized in every moment.
I think Hakuun Yasutani (I don't know if you read his books before, I found 'Flowers Fall' a great intro to Dogen) was criticizing those Soto Zen-nists who downplayed realization, or downplayed certain aspects... all three are important. IMO it was good criticism.
Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition
for example, "no-mind" is a Zen concept but it is not Pali "anatta"
for example, "sunyata" is not the "transcendance" of self but an emptiness (absence) of self. "transcendence" is "lokuttara", which means "above the world". the enlightened mind still lives in the world but remains unaffected by the world. so the enlightened mind is sunyata (absent of "self") & is transcendent ("unaffected by the world").
for example, "The Realization of I AM" is a Hindu concept.
this website appears mere intellectualism, the product of infatuation & stuck in "self"
thank you for your opinion.
lets move on.
2) No-mind is an experience, not a concept. But you are right that it is not the realization of anatta, therefore I said that even the experience of No Mind is *not* liberating. It is not particularly Zen because people from all traditions have experienced it, but may not have called it 'No Mind'. And anyway I do not see a problem with 'Zen' - you do, and thats your problem.
3) Absent and transcendent of the sense of self is what I mean. In sunyata, there is NO sense of self at all.
4) I already said Realization of I AM is a Hindu experience (not concept). Though it is common among Buddhists as well.
In short, before you experienced anything I wrote, it is best not to comment. As I only comment on what I have experienced and know for a fact.