dependent origination and middle way
-
That is still dualistic.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
'both a ball of light and mountain' is dualistic?
orrrr... somebody does not understand what is dualism...
When you say 'ball of light and mountain', you are seeing ball of light and mountain as separate. There is ONLY the Mountain, and Mountain = Consciousness.
There is no Subjective observer, nor an Object out there. When seeing mountain, there is only mountain, and you are that.
...And so how do you know that you have finally and really overcome the Cartesian dualism? Very simple: if you really overcome the Cartesian dualism, then you no longer feel that you are on this side of your face looking at the world out there. There is only the world, and you are all of that; you actually feel that you are one with everything that is arising moment to moment. You are not merely on this side of your face looking out there. “In here” and “out there” have become One Taste with a shuddering obviousness and certainty so profound it feels like a five-ton rock just dropped on your head. It is, shall we say, a feeling hard to miss....
...While you are resting in that state, and “sensing” this Witness as a great expanse, if you then look at, say, a mountain, you might begin to notice that the sensation of the Witness and the sensation of the mountain are the same sensation. When you “feel” your pure Self and you “feel” the mountain, they are absolutely the same feeling.
In other words, the real world is not given to you twice – one out there, one in here. That “twiceness” is exactly the meaning of “duality”. Rather, the real world is given to you once, immediately – it is one feeling, it has one taste, it is utterly full in that one taste, it is not severed into seer and seen, subject and object, fragment and fragment. It is a singular, of which the plural is unknown. You can taste the mountain; it is the same taste as your Self; it is not out there being reflected in here – that duality is not present in the immediateness of real experience. Real experience, before you slice it up, does not contain that duality- real experience, reality itself, is “nondual.” You are still you, and the mountain is still the mountain, but you and the mountain are two sides of one and the same experience, which is the one and only reality at that moment
If you relax into present experience in that fashion, the separate-self sense will uncoil; you will stop standing back from life; you will not have experience, you will suddenly become all experience; you will not be “in here” looking “out there” – in here and out there are one, so you are no longer trapped “in here.”
And so suddenly, you are not in the bodymind. Suddenly, the bodymind has dropped. Suddenly, the wind doesn’t blow on you, it blows through you, within you. You are not looking at the mountain, you are the mountain – the mountain is closer to you than your own skin. You are that, and there is no you – just this entire luminous display spontaneously arising moment to moment. The separate self is nowhere to be found.
The entire sensation of “weight” drops altogether, because you are not in the Kosmos, the Kosmos is in you, and you are purest Emptiness. The entire universe is a transparent shimmering of the Divine, of primordial Purity. But the Divine is not someplace else, it is just all of this shimmering. It is self-seen. It has One Taste. It is nowhere else. ~ Ken Wilber, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html
-------------------------------------
...After about three years of this I had my first experience of “nonduality” as it is called. I had just read a passage in Ken Wilber’s “The Spectrum of Consciousness” where he points out that ordinary awareness is ultimate awareness. This struck a chord in me, I set the book down and stared at a paper that was sitting on the table in front of me, after about a minute or two an exciting and frightening thing happened, I disappeared! By that I mean the middle fell right out of the equation. Normally there would be Steve over here looking at the paper on the desk over there, now there was only the experience, "paper" but no Steve over here seeing it. It was clear that the middle that normally separated the paper from Steve did not really exist, there was only the experience, "paper."
Now let me try to make this more clear by giving an illustration.
Imagine as clearly as you can that you enter a large house that you have never been in before. You feel strange and kind of scared, there is furniture and drapes but no people. You wander around feeling the creepiness of being alone in this big house. You go from room to room not knowing what you will find. You start to get nervous and a little fearful being alone in this big house. You wonder how long it has been empty like this. In time the sense of the bigness and emptiness of the house starts to weigh heavily on your nerves. Finally, when you can not stand it any longer a shocking realization occurs to you, your not there either! Only the experience, "house" exists.
This is how nonduality feels and is the real truth of existence. Remember the question, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Now you know the answer....
...There can never be a universe that does not involve consciousness. There are no universes or dimensions where there is no consciousness. Matter and form would never arise without consciousness. Universe/Consciousness, Mind/Matter, Wave/Particle, call it what you will, the reality is that the manifestation, the very appearance we call the universe, is consciousness.
Now don't mistake me here, there is no observer. There are no persons in existence experiencing the universe, but more than that there is no Ultimate Person, God, Mind, or anything else observing the universe. There is only the experience of the universe being there with no experiencer.
This seems like a paradox but who cares, this is the way it is. Experience "is," that is all, that is the way the universe is, an experience by no one. The universe spontaneously arises out of consciousness yet at the same time is itself consciousness. We must lose the idea of matter being observed by something we call consciousness, that is not true. Some teachers talk of the Witness, the ultimate passive mind that observes all things moment to moment. This implies some level of separation, a witness over here watching the universe over there. It's not like this, there is only the experience, universe. There is no observer. Even if there were no manifestation the feeling would be the same. Once again let me make this clear: consciousness is not aware "of" the universe, consciousness is aware "as" the universe...
...So in closing, Enlightenment can be talked about, it can be understood, it is not mysterious nor does it need to be cloaked in a secret "Boy's Only" club language. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that no one exists including you and that everything that happens does so spontaneously and perfectly. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that what exists is Universe/Consciousness, they are the same, U=C. Existence is itself consciousness and that is why there is something rather than nothing. This is the real state of things and because it is so natural, so simple and so obvious, we miss it daily...
~ Steven Norquist, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-enlightenment-no-i-mean-really.html
------------------------------------- -
(continued)
...Non-duality is NOT the same as a state of Witnessing Presence observing Phenomenality. An Eternal Witnessing Presence that is apart from Phenomena cannot be said to be non dual as there are two components here (witness and phenomena). This experience is characterised by a non-judging watcher observing the world and mind. I had this experience before. And now, I must say that true non-duality is distinctively different from this. The witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world . It (this witness) is not unchanging, but is simply a knowingness that is not apart from the flow of phenomenality.
Non duality can only be stably experienced when the 'sense of self' and the 'Eternal Witness' are correctly understood for what they are. ~ Longchen, http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-experience.html
---------
She is definitely at 'I AM' stage. She has not yet understood 'no subject-object split'. That is why she say there are 2 parts... body and spirit.
For one who realises non-duality (no subject-object split) there is no division of body and spirit. At non-duality realisation, body is not seen as entity but as perceptions and sensations that are 'not separated from environment'. In fact perception and sensation is the 'environment'.
Just my opinion... Hope that i am writing it correctly.
~ Longchen, http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=262915 -
eh eh eh eh eh... read carefully hor... "you are seeing ball of light and mountain as separate" or I am ?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:That is still dualistic.
When you say 'ball of light and mountain', you are seeing ball of light and mountain as separate. There is ONLY the Mountain, and Mountain = Consciousness.-
-
... read what I said and not what is in your head hor...
-
... root of the problem is that you do not understand dualism even though you are very good at cut and paste what dualism is...
-
You. You said 'both ball of light and mountain'Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:eh eh eh eh eh... read carefully hor... "you are seeing ball of light and mountain as separate" or I am ?
I said, there is no ball of light apart from mountain. -
Is there a ball of light or not there or not? Is there mountain there or not?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You. You said 'both ball of light and mountain'
I said, there is no ball of light apart from mountain. -
It all depends on what you mean by 'mountain'.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Is there a ball of light or not there or not? Is there mountain there or not?
If you think of 'mountain' as an objective reality, an 'entity' out there, then you fall into duality and illusion.
Mountain is merely the appearance of (true) Mind, it is Mind-Only. It is dependent arising Conditions and empty of inherent/objective existence, being merely Mind-Only appearances.
Emptiness does not mean non-existence of phenomena but the emptiness of there being any objective reality 'out there', but that reality is Mind-Only appearances, therefore Emptiness is Form.
Next, is there a ball of light/mirror? Thusness's comments already wrote so well:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Stage 4 (Presence as Mirror Bright Clarity) updated comments: Insight into no-self has arisen but non-dual experience is still not stabilized. The tendency to experience as a clear mirror reflecting still persist, however, the attention is shifted to experiencing pure presence of phenomenon. There is no more resistance towards phenomena manifestation, the ‘illusion’ of a background is seen and effort to sink back to a void background diminishes substantially.
Stage 5 (No Mirror Reflecting) updated comments: The drop is thorough, the center is gone. A more poetic expression would be sound hears, scenery sees, the dust is the mirror. Transient phenomenon itself has always been the mirror, complete in arising, self-liberates in its own accords.
Stage 6 (The nature Presence is Empty) updated comments: With the willingness to let go of the ‘I’ and ‘Mine’, the ‘emptiness nature’ is clearly understood. Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection.
To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background container nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme approaches lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature. -
*sigh* I said you do not fully understand what "dualism" is... and by now you should know that I am not going to give you the answer, right? So you can either believe me that your answer is in error... and try to find the better answer or you can believe that your answer is right ... errr not wrong but in error... and go with your answer ...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It all depends on what you mean by 'mountain'.
If you think of 'mountain' as an objective reality, an 'entity' out there, then you fall into duality and illusion.. -
Duality is simply that -- subject-object split.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:*sigh* I said you do not fully understand what "dualism" is... and by now you should know that I am not going to give you the answer, right? So you can either believe me that your answer is in error... and try to find the better answer or you can believe that your answer is right ... errr not wrong but in error... and go with your answer ...
If you have been reading the recent topic, Longchen's three new articles, I explained Duality very thoroughly. Do read Longchen's article too.
------------------Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Agreed. We can say that the Nonduality of Subject and Object is related to other forms of nonduality, yet other forms of nonduality may not necessary bring out the essence of the Nonduality of Subject and Object, which is the fundamental kind of insights known as "enlightenment".
http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html
[b]The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality
This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness.
More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials.
The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.
Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.
No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.
OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.
For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.[/b]
David Loy wrote in 'Nonduality' (highly recommended book on nondual concept), first chapter, which is called 'How many nondualities are there?'
In it, it distinguished 5 kinds of nonduality.
No concept is more important in Asian philosophical and religious thought than nonduality (Sanskrit advaya and advaita, Tibetan gNismed, Chinese pu-erh, Japanese fu-ni), and none is more ambiguous. The term has been used in many different although related ways, and to my knowledge the distinction between these meanings have never been fully clarified. These meanings are distinct, although they often overlap in particular instances....
...The following types of nonduality are discussed here: the negation of dualistic thinking, the nonplurality of the world, and the nondifference of subject and object. In subsequent chapters, our attention focuses primarily on the last of these three, although there will also be occasion to consider two other nondualities which are also closely related: first, what has been called the identity of phenomena and Absolute, or the Mahayana equation of samsara and nirvana, which can also be expressed as "the nonduality of duality and nonduality"; second, the possibility of a mystical unity between God and man. No doubt other nondualities can be distinguished, but most of them can be subsumed under one or more of the above categories....
A very short summary:
Dualistic thinking here, means thinking in terms of good and bad, right and wrong, purity and impurity, being and non-being, black and white and so on.
"Without relation to "good there is no "bad," in dependence on which we form the idea of "Good." Therefore "good" is unintelligible. There is no "good" unrelated to "bad"; yet we form our idea of "bad" in dependence on it. There is therefore no "bad." (Nagarjuna)
The second nonduality, the nonplurality of the world, is that...due to the superimpositions of dualistic thinking that we experience the world itself dualistically in our second sense: as a collection of discrete objects (one of them being me) causally interacting in space and time. The negation of dualistic thinking leads to the negation of this way of experiencing the world. This brings us to the second sense of nonduality: that the world itself is nonplural, because all things "in" the world are not really distinct from each other but together constitute some integral whole. The relation between these two senses of nonduality is shown by Huang Po at the very beginning of his Chun Chou record:
The third nonduality, is the nonduality of subject and object.
All Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought about in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces, and comparisons. It is that which you see before you -- begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error.
This asserts more than that everything is composed of some indefinable substance. The unity of everything "in" the world means that each thing is a manifestation of a "spiritual" whole because the One Mind incorporates all consciousness and all minds. This whole -- indivisible, birthless, and deathless -- has been designated by a variety of terms, as all as the One Mind, there are the Tao, Brahman, the Dharmakaya, and so on. -
(continued)
We have seen the connection between the first two dualities: it is because of our dualistic ways of thinking that we perceive the world pluralistically. The relationship between the corresponding nondualities is parallel: the world as a collection of discrete things (including me) in space and time is not something objectively given, which we merely observe passively; if our ways of thinking change, that world also changes for us. But there is still something lacking in this formulation. By itself it is incomplete, for it leaves unclarified the relation between the subject and the nondual world that the subject experiences. It was stated earlier that the nondual whole is "spiritual" because the One Mind includes my mind, but How consciousness could be incorporated has not been explained. The world is not really experienced as a whole if the subject that perceives it is still separate from it and its observation Of it. In this way the second sense of nonduality, conceived objectively, is unstable and naturally tends to evolve into a third sense. This third sense, like the other two, must be understood as a negation. The dualism denied is our usual distinction between subject and object, an experiencing self that is distinct from what is experienced, be it sense-object, physical action, or mental event. The corresponding nonduality is experience in which there is no such distinction between subject and object. However extraordinary and counterintuitive such nonduality may be, it is an essential element of many Asian systems (and some Western ones, of course). Since the primary purpose of this world is to analyze this third sense of nonduality, it is necessary to establish in detail the prevalence and significance of this concept....
------
I came to realize clearly that mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars. ~ Dogen -
You know all the concepts, I am sure... you know where to cut and paste the relevant articles... but whether or not you understand dualism is how you answer some simple questions....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Duality is simply that -- subject-object split. ..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Is there a ball of light or not there or not? Is there mountain there or not?
That is a bad answer and it shows that you do not understand dualism...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It all depends on what you mean by 'mountain'.
If you think of 'mountain' as an objective reality, an 'entity' out there, then you fall into duality and illusion.
Maybe to help you along, "Why" does it depend on what a person mean by "mountain".
"Why?" is it that if you think of "'mountain' as an objective reality, an 'entity' out there" you are, as you implied, wrong and "fall into duality and illusion"?
Are you denying that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people call a "mountain" out there?
Then what is that thing out there that people call a "mountain" out there?
It is not a mountain? There is no mountain there?
To acknowledge that there is a mountain there is to be dualistic?
If that is the case, I rather be dualistic, because I want to acknowledge reality and the reality is that there is a mountain "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people drives up and climb up...
To acknowledge that there is a mountain out there, "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " is not being dualistic. Being dualistic is something else... and that something else is what you do not get.
If you ask anybody whether there is a mountain that people call Everest and whether Everest exists as "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people can climb up. they will tell you, "Yes".
If you tell them, "No", they will ask you "siao ar?" "You want directions to IMH?"
You are becoming more and more weird... I suggest you re-think your position.
You need to acknowledge reality, that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest... but...
ahhhh... "but"; not there is no "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..."
You need to get that part straight... or you will be a good candidate for IMH.
Dualism is not escaping from reality... Buddhism is not escaping from reality... Dualism and Buddhism is looking at reality for what it is and then some... it is looking at reality for what it is and more... it is looking at reality for what it is, that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." out there but to be also, in addition, to be aware that there is more than an "objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." and not the the denial of reality that there is no "objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." out there. That is what IMH patients think. That is not Buddhism and that is not dualism. -
By writing this it shows that you do not understand Non-Duality, the important Mind-Only teachings, and what is Emptiness.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That is a bad answer and it shows that you do not understand dualism...
Maybe to help you along, "Why" does it depend on what a person mean by "mountain".
"Why?" is it that if you think of "'mountain' as an objective reality, an 'entity' out there" you are, as you implied, wrong and "fall into duality and illusion"?
Are you denying that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people call a "mountain" out there?
Then what is that thing out there that people call a "mountain" out there?
It is not a mountain? There is no mountain there?
To acknowledge that there is a mountain there is to be dualistic?
If that is the case, I rather be dualistic, because I want to acknowledge reality and the reality is that there is a mountain "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people drives up and climb up...
To acknowledge that there is a mountain out there, "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " is not being dualistic. Being dualistic is something else... and that something else is what you do not get.
If you ask anybody whether there is a mountain that people call Everest and whether Everest exists as "as an objective reality, an 'entity' " that people can climb up. they will tell you, "Yes".
If you tell them, "No", they will ask you "siao ar?" "You want directions to IMH?"
You are becoming more and more weird... I suggest you re-think your position.
You need to acknowledge reality, that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest... but...
ahhhh... "but"; not there is no "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..."
You need to get that part straight... or you will be a good candidate for IMH.
Dualism is not escaping from reality... Buddhism is not escaping from reality... Dualism and Buddhism is looking at reality for what it is and then some... it is looking at reality for what it is and more... it is looking at reality for what it is, that there is "an objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." out there but to be also, in addition, to be aware that there is more than an "objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." and not the the denial of reality that there is no "objective reality, an 'entity' " people call Mount Everest..." out there. That is what IMH patients think. That is not Buddhism and that is not dualism.
I wonder if you have read my explanation on the Flower?
If you see a colourful flower and a dog and an insect too sees it, you and the dog and the ant are not going to see the same things. The dog is only going to see black and white. Why? Because the nature of the flower is Empty -- there is no graspable 'Essence of Flower' or the 'Flowerness of the Flower' -- Flower is empty of any inherent existence, being only conditioned arising, merely the aggregation of causes and conditions, and having no reality apart from it!
All is merely dependent arising, they are mere APPEARANCE that is Mind-Only having NO objective reality or inherent existence, no fixed shapes, attributes, form, anythings that can be grasped.
BUT it does not mean that they do not exist -- emptiness is empty of the four extremes of 'existence, non existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existenece'. The middle way is that there is merely APPEARANCES -- Emptiness cannot be separated from appearances. Mountain is not an objective reality, it is dependent arising apperances, it is Conditions, and that is Mind-Only.
And I also quoted Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's writings which I have so conincidentally found during the time I was writing my post:
Advice On Presence And Awareness
...A practitioner of Dzogchen must have precise presence and awareness. Until one really and truly knows one's own mind and can govern it with awareness, even if very many explanations of reality are given, they remain nothing more than ink on paper or matters for debate among intellectuals, without the possibility of the birth of any understanding of the real meaning. In the Kun-byed rgyal-po, a tantra of Dzogchen, it is said that: 'The Mind is that which creates both Samsara and Nirvana, so one needs to know this King which creates everything!' We say we transmigrate in the impure and illusory vision of Samsara, but in reality, it's just our mind that is transmigrating. And then again, as far as pure Enlightenment is concerned, it's only our own mind, purified, that realizes it. Our mind is the basis of everything, and from our mind everything arises, Samsara and Nirvana, ordinary sentient beings and Enlightened Ones. Consider the way beings transmigrate in the impure vision of Samsara: even though the Essence of the Mind, the true nature of our mind, is totally pure right from the beginning, nevertheless, because pure mind is temporarily obscured by the impurity of ignorance, there is no self-recognition of our own State. Through this lack of self-recognition arise illusory thoughts and actions created by the passions. Thus various negative karmic causes are accumulated and since their maturation as effects is inevitable, one suffers bitterly, transmigrating in the six states of existence. Thus, not recognizing one's own State is the cause of transmigration, and through this cause one becomes the slave of illusions and distractions.
Conditioned by the mind, one becomes strongly habituated to illusory actions. And then it's the same as far as pure Enlightenment is concerned; beyond one's own mind there is no dazzling light to come shining in from outside to wake one up. If one recognizes one's own intrinsic State as pure from the beginning and only temporarily obscured by impurities, and if one maintains the presence of this recognition without becoming distracted, then all the impurities dissolve. This is the essence of the Path. Then the inherent quality of the great original purity of the Primordial State manifests, and one recognizes it and becomes the master of it as a lived experience. This experience of the real knowledge of the authentic original condition, or the true awareness of the State, is what is called Nirvana. So Enlightenment is nothing other than one's own mind in its purified condition. For this reason Padma Sambhava said: 'the mind is the creator of Samsara and of Nirvana. Outside the mind there exists neither Samsara nor Nirvana. 'Having thus established that the basis of Samsara and Nirvana is the mind, it follows that all that seems concrete in the world, and all the seeming solidity of beings themselves, is nothing but an illusory vision of one's own mind.
Just as a person who has a 'bile' disease sees a shell as being yellow even if one can see objectively that that is not its true color, so in just the same way, as a result of the particular karmic causes of sentient beings, the various illusory visions manifest. Thus, if one were to meet a being of each of the six states of existence on the bank of the same river, they would not see that river in the same way, since they each would have different karmic causes. The beings of the hot hells would see the river as fire; those of the cold hells would see it as ice; beings of the hungry ghost realm would see the river as blood and pus; aquatic animals would see it as an environment to live in; human beings would see the river as water to drink; while the demi-gods would see it as weapons, and the gods as nectar. This shows that in reality nothing exists as concrete and objective. Therefore, understanding that the root of Samsara is truly the mind, one should set out to pull up the root. Recognizing that the mind itself is the essence of Enlightenment one attains liberation. Thus, being aware that the basis of Samsara and Nirvana is only the mind, one takes the decision to practice... -
Prior to Stage 5, there is still no insight into the reality that all manifestation is "Mind-Only". The teachings of "Mind-Only" will not make much sense. There is still a mirror as a subtle sense of a center, even though the attention is shifted to experiencing pure presence of phenomenon.
You will also not understand why there is "no objects coming and going". -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
....but to deny that the flower exists... that is denying reality...
By writing this it shows that you do not understand Non-Duality, the important Mind-Only teachings, and what is Emptiness.
I wonder if you have read my explanation on the Flower?
If you see a colourful flower and a dog and an insect too sees it, you and the dog and the ant are not going to see the same things. The dog is only going to see black and white. Why? Because the nature of the flower is Empty -- there is no graspable 'Essence of Flower' or the 'Flowerness of the Flower' -- Flower is empty of any inherent existence, being only conditioned arising, merely the aggregation of causes and conditions, and having no reality apart from it!.[/i][/b]
You cannot say, because the flower does not exist inherently, the flower does not exist...
You say the flower exists BUT, you have to be AWARE of how the flower exists. That is Buddhism, that is what Non-Duality teaches you... Buddhism and Non-Duality teaching does not teach you how to end up in IMH and deny the existence of flowers and mountains and you and I... once you do that, deny the existence of these things, you are dualistic... so you see how, in trying to be Non-Dual, you become Dual?
That is why dualism is such an important teaching. To degrade Non-Duality into an IMH deserving concept of the non-existence of flower and mountain and everything else... and say that everything is but a ball of light....
-
That is "Form is Emptiness" and if you stop there, you will stop in IMH.
Remember, "Emptiness is Form" as well.... like that quote said...
"knowing "Emptiness is Form" takes a life-time..." -
It shows you have not understood what I am writing, or you didn't read.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:....but to deny that the flower exists... that is denying reality...
You cannot say, because the flower does not exist inherently, the flower does not exist...
You say the flower exists BUT, you have to be AWARE of how the flower exists. That is Buddhism, that is what Non-Duality teaches you... Buddhism and Non-Duality teaching does not teach you how to end up in IMH and deny the existence of flowers and mountains and you and I... once you do that, deny the existence of these things, you are dualistic... so you see how, in trying to be Non-Dual, you become Dual?
That is why dualism is such an important teaching. To degrade Non-Duality into an IMH deserving concept of the non-existence of flower and mountain and everything else... and say that everything is but a ball of light....
I wrote:
All is merely dependent arising, they are mere APPEARANCE that is Mind-Only having NO objective reality or inherent existence, no fixed shapes, attributes, form, anythings that can be grasped.
BUT it does not mean that they do not exist -- emptiness is empty of the four extremes of 'existence, non existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existenece'. The middle way is that there is merely APPEARANCES -- Emptiness cannot be separated from appearances. Mountain is not an objective reality, it is dependent arising apperances, it is Conditions, and that is Mind-Only.
I think I must have mentioned about the 4 extremes countless times in this forum....
Remember, as countless Masters have said, Buddha Nature is Appearance-Emptiness inseparable. -
"These appearances have been unborn primordially.
Being without an essence, they are like reflections.
Nevertheless, they still appear as variety."
"Space and wisdom are non-dual and of one taste."
"The two truths are known as non-dual appearance-emptiness."
"Inseparable and primordial appearance and emptiness."
-- Longchenpa --
That's why without understanding Emptiness which is Dependent Origination, one cannot understand why the one is the many. How reality is not 'THE mirror' or 'THE center' but really the diversity/Conditions as ongoing reflection itself is mirror.
update: Longchenpa is not our forummer Longchen, Longchenpa is a major Dzogchen & Nyingma teacher living in the 14th century. -
sorry i'm sooo out of topic now... pls pardon me.
what "IMH" all come out in this topic.
ah doi... funny lah you people.
relax, neither this nor that and have a good laugh. -
hehe...Originally posted by paperflower:
sorry i'm sooo out of topic now... pls pardon me.
what "IMH" all come out in this topic.
ah doi... funny lah you people.
relax, neither this nor that and have a good laugh.
AndrewPKYap's realisations and experience is at stage 4: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
In my replies to him I am trying to bring out the Mind-Only teachings to him, as well as the essence of Emptiness.
Just like a flower can appear in different colours to a dog and a man, nothing has an inherent, objective existence 'out there', there is no fixed shape, form, colour, attributes, etc. What Is is merely Appearances due to Dependent Arising, having no independent nature of its own! All manifestations are Mind-Only, a manifestation of our Self-Nature! They are all Pristine Awareness.
All are Empty! Nothing is ever born! (see Longchenpa's quote) Being merely like reflections on water. Yet, Emptiness precisely means Dependent Arising, and is inseparable. As such, Conditions as appearances continue to arise in diversity!
"They are as illusory as the flower in the mirror or the moon in the water!" -- All Form is Non-form (good article on what is Emptiness)
To AndrewPKYap:
In the past I have not seen but now all puzzles are forming into meaningful pictures.
-
I also noticed how language (and all other symbols) gives rise to a strong sense of duality... it always presumes that there must be something 'out there', that 'exists'. When we think of 'mountain', images and ideas of what 'mountain' is and should be already arises and it seems sooo real to us that a 'mountain' must exist out there. We are completely blinded by this karmic propensity due to a habitual grasping on symbols.
I would again like to quote what I posted on Bernie Glassman previously in this thread: Let's look at the word Heart in the title. As we have seen, the heart or essence of the Enlightened Way is not-knowing, which makes it possible for everything and anything to manifest. As soon as we know something, we prevent anything else from manifesting, form just popping up. As soon as we know something, we limit the thing we think we know. The state of not-knowing is everyone, everything, and anything, constantly manifesting, constantly popping up in accord with changes in time and situation. But if we live out of knowing, this endless manifestation of things, one after another, can't be experienced directly. We're blocked by our notions of what Should be happening and get upset because our expectations don't match the way things really are. When we let go of our expectations, we are with things as they are, and we realize the essence or heart of the Perfection of Great Wisdom Sutra.
That is why one must practice being 'bare'... naked in awareness. Bare in attention. The purpose of insight practice (i.e vipassana, vipashyana, etc) is to do just that... to go pre-symbolic in which language is part of it.
Does that mean we cannot use language? No. Language must be used in our daily life purposes, the problem only comes when we 'buy in' and 'believe', 'grasp' on its symbolic meanings and become deluded by the seemingly real subjective and objective realities.
Once the illusion is seen through, language becomes merely a tool that no longer confuses us. That is why...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25) -
Just remembered Longchen wrote something on this about 2 years ago. Wonderful
http://www.dreamdatum.com/symbol-presence.html -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I know what you are trying to say, what I am doing is pointing out that if you take that position, "Mountain is not an objective reality, it is dependent arising apperances, it is Conditions, and that is Mind-Only" you cannot also that the position that it is "an objective reality"; you said that:
It shows you have not understood what I am writing, or you didn't read.
I wrote:
All is merely dependent arising, they are mere APPEARANCE that is Mind-Only having NO objective reality or inherent existence, no fixed shapes, attributes, form, anythings that can be grasped.
[b]BUT it does not mean that they do not exist -- emptiness is empty of the four extremes of 'existence, non existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existenece'. The middle way is that there is merely APPEARANCES -- Emptiness cannot be separated from appearances. Mountain is not an objective reality, it is dependent arising apperances, it is Conditions, and that is Mind-Only.
I think I must have mentioned about the 4 extremes countless times in this forum....
Remember, as countless Masters have said, Buddha Nature is Appearance-Emptiness inseparable.[/b]
"Mountain is not an objective reality" Unreal
and so you cannot say that:
"Mountain is an objective reality" Real
You said that:
"Mountain is not an objective reality" meaning it is not real and that makes you, if you carry it too far, a candidate for IMH. Of course if you take it only as a philosophical stand, then you are not a candidate of IMH.
If you go around telling people that the mountain Sir Edmund Hillary climbed, Mount Everest is not real, it is "is not an objective reality", people will look at you
If you say that Mountain is mind-only and when you climb, you are not climbing, you are only climbing in your mind-only. Like "you" sit and meditate and imagine yourself climbing a "mountain", like that.
Therefore, according to you, when Sir Edmund Hillary, climbed mount Everest it was a mind-only activity, because you claimed that everything is mind-only, like when someone sits down and meditate and think that "he" (there is no he, mind-only, no objective reality) and climbed the mountain (there is no mountain, mind-only, no objective reality).
This brings up the question, if Sir Edmund Hillary is only a figment of imagination, "mind-only", then whose figment of imagination is Sir Edmund Hillary and how does Sir Edmund Hillary know that he is a figment of someone's imagination.
There are many other things... but let just see what you say about this.
If Sir Edmund Hillary is only a figment of imagination, "mind-only", then whose figment of imagination, "mind-only", is Sir Edmund Hillary and Mount Everest? -
I am at stage 4? hahaha ... I am if you must know.... experiencing how Emptiness is Form...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:hehe...
AndrewPKYap's realisations and experience is at stage 4: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
According toOriginally posted by sinweiy:
It appears to me that not everyone is stuck at " Form is Emptiness ".
As Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche used to say frequently " Form is Emptiness, we can just about get, ...Emptiness is Form takes a lifetime ".
/\[/b]
When you want to talk about stages... "AndrewPKYap's realisations and experience is at stage 4: "
The stage 4, that you talk about is "stage 4" of " Form is Emptiness "....
What I am talking about, to you, is "Introduction to " Emptiness is Form. -
becauseOriginally posted by paperflower:
sorry i'm sooo out of topic now... pls pardon me.
what "IMH" all come out in this topic.
ah doi... funny lah you people.
relax, neither this nor that and have a good laugh.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
It is better to be brutally honest, we are all adults here... in order to get at the truth, you have to be able to face some "harsh" realities.
"Mountain [b]is not an objective reality" meaning it is not real and that makes you, if you carry it too far, a candidate for IMH. Of course if you take it only as a philosophical stand, then you are not a candidate of IMH.
If you go around telling people that the mountain Sir Edmund Hillary climbed, Mount Everest is not real, it is "is not an objective reality", people will look at you [/b]
Reality as they say, bites.