what is the name of the part of you that experiences rebirth
-
be like a non-stick pan... nothing clings onto it.
'Sense of self' is not the doer anyway. Let things flow....in the NOW.. wah. peace.. man. -
Who is the one writing about NOW and about the non existence of past and future?
Obviously it is you. If you say that "you" does not exist; then what is that which says that "you" does not exist?
What is it that says says "you" are a continuum? What is it that says "there is no reincarnation" only a "continuing?"
There is only Thusness, no past no future. Only "Thus."
Who is the one that realises that it is only THUS?
Nobody? Nobody realises anything and nobody understands anything and nobody transcends nothing?
Obviously you people are missing something. You are only saying what the "reality" is but you have not said anything about "who" is observing this reality. -
Similarly, you have only said that samsara is inherently empty but have not said anything about what is REAL.
-
Again, the question of 'who' arises when we try to analyse in terms of linear mode.Originally posted by casino_king:Who is the one writing about NOW and about the non existence of past and future?
Obviously it is you. If you say that "you" does not exist; then what is that which says that "you" does not exist?
What is it that says says "you" are a continuum? What is it that says "there is no reincarnation" only a "continuing?"
There is only Thusness, no past no future. Only "Thus."
Who is the one that realises that it is only THUS?
Nobody? Nobody realises anything and nobody understands anything and nobody transcends nothing?
Obviously you people are missing something. You are only saying what the "reality" is but you have not said anything about "who" is observing this reality.
THUS is just THUS
-
So nobody realises that THUS is just THUS?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Again, the question of 'who' arises when we try to analyse in terms of linear mode.
THUS is just THUS 
You are completely confused my friend. THUS does not describe the "who" part. THUS describes the reality of existence.
-
Just like emptiness describes the reality of samsara
-
From Interesting site about stages of progress
When observing moment to moment changes, it is almost natural to conclude this way. There must be an unchanging observer observing change is a logical deduction. It is the result of the lightning flash changes, logical deduction and memories that create the impression of an unchanging entity. There is continuity, but continuity with an unchanging entity is not necessary. - Thusness -
I did. Check 17 July 2006 · 04:50 PM[/url]Originally posted by casino_king:Similarly, you have only said that samsara is inherently empty but have not said anything about what is REAL. -
So you now say that there is an "entity" but that this "entity" is also constantly changing.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:From Interesting site about stages of progress
When observing moment to moment changes, it is almost natural to conclude this way. There must be an unchanging observer observing change is a logical deduction. It is the result of the lightning flash changes, logical deduction and memories that create the impression of an unchanging entity. There is continuity, but continuity with an unchanging entity is not necessary. - Thusness
That is a little better.
But you still have not answered the question. What is this "entity" that has a ever changing nature as well? There will be some more questions for you later... -
No no... continuity, but not entity, because entity is already seeing things fragmentedly.Originally posted by casino_king:So you now say that there is an "entity" but that this "entity" is also constantly changing.
That is a little better.
But you still have not answered the question. What is this "entity" that has a ever changing nature as well? There will be some more questions for you later...
As I said:
Because we are empty of inherent existence, there is no 'self' that is the same as us in the past, nor will there be a 'self' that is the same as us in the future. Neither similar nor different, cos empty. Reality is beyond extremes.. if we go by linear analysis we cannot understand it.
If you have read Nagarjuna, you will know that both holding the view 'Similar', 'Different' is extreme, if you you think that is an entity, then it implies there is something that is changing, but it is still a something, meaning somehow 'similar' and 'different', it is just confusion.
We have to let go of this kind of analysis first. Reality is spontaneous. gtg now.. cya. -
There is no doer... there is only doing. So no doer... how can there be a 'who'?
This might seems like a puzzle or a riddle but it is not. Very few people will ever believe this... much less Mr CK.
However, under deep meditation, this can be seem or realised. It is the super fast referencing (cause and effect) of the sequence of thoughts that cause an impression of a 'self' observing and doing things. However, the 'sense of self or I' is just in the sequences of thoughts. There is no observer (self) of these actions => no doer of any action at all. -
It is such a blessing after 15 years of "I Am" to come to this point . Beware that the habitual tendencies will try its very best to take back what it has lost.Originally posted by longchen:There is no doer... there is only doing. So no doer... how can there be a 'who'?
This might seems like a puzzle or a riddle but it is not. Very few people will ever believe this... much less Mr CK.
However, under deep meditation, this can be seem or realised. It is the super fast referencing (cause and effect) of the sequence of thoughts that cause an impression of a 'self' observing and doing things. However, the 'sense of self or I' is just in the sequences of thoughts. There is no observer (self) of these actions => no doer of any action at all.
Get use to doing nothing. Eat God, taste God, see God and touch God.
Congrads.
-
Under deep meditation? Can be seen? Can be realised? and nobody is doing the meditating? Nobody is seeing this? Nobody is realising this?Originally posted by longchen:There is no doer... there is only doing. So no doer... how can there be a 'who'?
This might seems like a puzzle or a riddle but it is not. Very few people will ever believe this... much less Mr CK.
However, under deep meditation, this can be seem or realised. It is the super fast referencing (cause and effect) of the sequence of thoughts that cause an impression of a 'self' observing and doing things. However, the 'sense of self or I' is just in the sequences of thoughts. There is no observer (self) of these actions => no doer of any action at all.
You are equally just as confused as AEN. -
Heart Sutra:Originally posted by casino_king:Under deep meditation? Can be seen? Can be realised? and nobody is doing the meditating? Nobody is seeing this? Nobody is realising this?
You are equally just as confused as AEN.
Likewise there is no suffering, no origination, no cessation, and no path; no understanding, no attainment, and no non-attainment.
There is meditation but no meditator, meditation is NOT DONE to attain ANYTHING, but done to loosen our bonds. Bonds loosen, illusion gone, reality manifest naturally. -
Just like samsara is empty; "You" the "You" who is writing all these is empty. The I who is writing this is empty.
What does that mean? Conditional arising; inherent emptiness... that is to say, we will cease to exist when the conditions are no longer there; when we cease to exist, we will revert back to the "parts" that made us (inherent emptiness.)
In this sense, there is no "self."
This "no self" applies only to samsara. This "no self" applies only to the inherently empty self.
Yet the 60 verses does not stop there. It tells you to transcend the duality of samsara and nirvana.
That is a hint for you. You must transcend from the inherently empty; samsara/nirvana and the "no self" to the inherently existing and the "self."
Unfortunately you are confused. You do not understand because you have not transcended. -
There is no attainment and no non attainment, why?
Transcend and you will know why! -
unfortunately, same goes to you.Originally posted by casino_king:Unfortunately you are confused. You do not understand because you have not transcended. -
Well... unfortunately because you are still confused... i can only give you this piece of advise:
First understand is the 'spirit' inside or outside of you first before you think you know what is emptiness.
Transcend what lah, a spirit locked inside a body, transcend that first.
take care... gtg... -
I know what I know... if you think you know what I know, just too bad, I guess.
-
Spirit locked in a body? Your confusion is deep.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Well... unfortunately because you are still confused... i can only give you this piece of advise:
First understand is the 'spirit' inside or outside of you first before you think you know what is emptiness.
Transcend what lah, a spirit locked inside a body, transcend that first.
take care... gtg... -
Pls recall this:
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Because you are contained within your own experience of spirit, I am unable to discuss with you, unless you do 3 things:
[b]1) Are you able to forgot whatever is being discussed, not even a trace in ur mind, and go back to what that is born spiritually?
2) Seriously look into the link that Longchen posted. Interesting site about stages of progress
3) Most important of all, you must be sincere and stop useless pretense.
Only a geniune heart can attract geniune answers. If people sense your sincerity, there will definitely be contributors. Even there is no consensus, there will be true gain.[/b] -
I do not understand why you can come so far and still fail to get it.
All the Buddhist scriptures on emptiness and non attachment and non attainment refers to "reality."
You must transcend "reality" into the transcendental. You seem stuck in "reality."
The sixty verses predicted that the readers will be stuck in samsara or enter into nirvana and that is why it tells you to transcend samsara and nirvana but you simply refuse and get yourself stuck in "reality."
This is so sad. -
not knowing what you don't know is just as not ideal
-
If indeed you know, which I seriously doubt since you never contribute anything of substance to the debate, but if you do know, then tell us instead of just making irrelevant remarks.
-
that is the taste of your own medicine.
i thought you know what you know already?