Dependent origination

[Phaelyn]

When you realize nothing is lacking, the whole world belongs to you. Lao Tzu

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Yes..

But one shouldn't confuse silence or mindfulness with Rigpa.

It is all mind..

Yes all of this is projected "out there" (really in here) as objects.
Silence, mindfulness, even rigpa.
Like you say, all of that and this is mind.

I am it. There is nothing and no place other than here/me to find.

But we are talking about mind so as to not be confusing.
Mental images.

I am not confused about reality. This apple is here, that lamp, this planet I am standing on.
I can experience all of this and myself without mental images.
Direct experience.
And the conceptual is here, language, for my use.

But when I am distracted by mind, I can recognize that,
and in the recognizing I am free of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZOyGOmuwE

[Gem]

The main problem the notion of you are your anger, feelings and so on within a Buddhist context is Buddha taught the aggregates in relation to anatta to convey that there is no self inherent to the aggregates.


A later Tibetan master probably said the opposite (It sounds kinda spiritual-like), and hence we have a contradiction.


But of course one will say not-I and the other will say all-I and both so sure that they are right, when the task is to investigate mind/matter - thought and feeling - and discern for ones self that there is no self, or here called 'foundation', inherent to the phenomena.


So the questions were asked thus:


"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."


He ('he' being Buddha) goes on to say, after such questions: " all (insert stuff here) must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'


And this probably was not given as an answer to some sort of existential question, but as the proper way to regard things in meditation. Hence He concludes by saying:


"seeing thus, (one) gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated." (or something like that)


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....059.mend.html


In view of what Buddha said, it's going to be hard to convince people that they are 'stuff' within a Buddhist philosophical context.

[sentient]

If one has got difficulty in connecting to “Anatta” experientially, then perhaps it might be useful to look up “Shunyata” instead - as those 2 terms have been equated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the non-self (Pāli: anattā)

In my understanding Shunyata is that simple open ‘emptiness’ which removes the dual wall i.e. the barrier, the screen between subject and object.
Shunya meaning ‘empty’ and ta meaning –‘ness’.

*

Also I kind of see why they do not call going beyond the 6th sense door (mind) as ‘perceiving’ anymore.
Mind looks/perceives and thinks ….. but Shunyata is more like clear cognizance - on the spot - i.e. inner knowing without a need to look and without any words needed to describe “what is”.
In other words Shunyata does not need an interpreter or a commentator to clearly cognize the ‘isness-of-emptiness’ as “what is”….

*

Anam Thubten say:

The sky is always in a state of meditation.

But Space is always in a state of meditation ….

He has also written a book called “The Fragrance of Emptiness” ….
I haven’t read the book, but since “emptiness is also form” - in my understanding this refers to the ‘isness’ quality of form.
The ‘isness’ quality of a spruce-tree (the presence of spruce-ness) is entirely different to the presence of ghostgum-ness.
So this ‘isness’ quality discerns, without the mind discerning anything, without the mind needing to verbalize it in order for the awareness to cognize it.

*

It is as if we live in 2 different kinds of dualities. (The Cross).
One is ‘horizontal’ between the self and the other … and the other one is ‘vertical’ between the relative (self) and the absolute.
Not saying that Shunyata is the ultimate, whatnot, but it is vitally important.
Shunyata removing the 'horizontal' dual barrier is as if the first step on the ‘vertical’. The union of both.

*

Without the ‘isness’ qualities of emptiness, there would just be the mind dictating to self and others “what is”.
To put “what is” into a mould, into a box, into a straitjacket - in order for the mind to seek ‘control’ over “what is”.

To put this into a very samsaric, dualistic and crude example:
If somebody tells you that: “If you are not for me you are against me!
Well, the ‘isness’ quality of such ultimatums are confrontational aggression as I sense it, in order to box, to control …..(no spatial freedom).

Yet, it has been said that Samsara is the language of Nirvana ….but with that from horizontal to vertical twist …

If one is not for Shunyata – one is against it. And it is as crude, as black and white and as cutting as that.

In other words, if one doesn’t live according to the ‘isness-of-emptiness’ dictates – one lives according to the mind dictates …..

But. If one is already beyond the mind dictates – then there is no need to be stuck on the mind’s habitual aversion/attraction/ignorance point ….
Shunyata and its ‘isness’ liberates one from that.

*

Originally Posted by jonesboy

From that forum.

“Consciousness is not self”

- The Buddha

Seems like you don’t understand again.

As to anger and such, seems like you misapprehend anatta and it’s implications etc

Jl

Originally Posted by jonesboy

It is all mind.. thoughts, the world, feelings. Not separate from you.

Oh dear

Jl

Originally Posted by sky123

Enjoyable and insightful Post JL, thanks

You’re welcome, the Buddhists know their teachings



Love

Jl

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

The main problem the notion of you are your anger, feelings and so on within a Buddhist context is Buddha taught the aggregates in relation to anatta to convey that there is no self inherent to the aggregates.

I would say the self is the witness of the aggregates. There is no self in the aggregates, that which carries the awareness of that is the self. Then somebody might say, no, no, Buddhism asserts no-self, and I would say, the thing that asserts no-self is not the self, the witness of that assertion is, and that which realizes the truths to which Buddhism points, the object Buddhism point for and to, is the self. Without a self, Buddhism has no point. Something becomes enlightened, something becomes liberated, something can know silence, something can be full of loving-kindness, compassion, light.

Originally Posted by Gem

But of course one will say not-I and the other will say all-I and both so sure that they are right,

Both are right. not-I refers to the realization I am the perceiver, not the perceived. all-I refers to the realization everyone is just as me, a perceiver, perception, that is caught up or not caught up in that it perceives.

Originally Posted by Gem

Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord"

You gotta help me out on this one. Is that answer."Indeed, not that, O Lord" basically saying, "Yes (indeed) then No (not that) ?

If so, then it makes sense. I'll simplify it and just say "mechanical thought" instead of "that which is impermanent," so is it proper to regard thought as this is mine, this I am, this is my self? Well yea if one is identified with thought as self. If you are basically your mind, I encounter you as that. You tell me your opinions and beliefs and on and on, all of these temporary impermanent thoughts are what you project as self and so are what you and I experience as self. Then is it also not proper? Yes if one understands mind in all of it's forms as not I (self realization, enlightenment, whatever one calls it,) then such things don't manifest as self nor are they understood as being self.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

but since “emptiness is also form”

Just my opinion here but that to me is talking about the fact every idea is an idea. There is no such thing as an idea that is not an idea. Idea, mental image, thought, whatever you name it. So I can say there is form and not form, both are thoughts right? The thoughts may be pointing to different concepts, but here again, concepts are concepts.

In this moment, as the writer of the above, I am just juggling mental images, ideas. No matter what I come up with, enlightened or not enlightened, up or down, self or no-self, this all exists in the same exact box as the exact same thing, mental ideas.

Take form for example, we can define that as all of these mental images. Ok so then no-form would be the absence of these images. But I am considering no-form as a form. As an idea or mental image. I have an image of what no-form is so no-form here is a form.

Is emptiness a form? Of course it's just another idea we can carry. Now one perceiving the world as it is, apart from the mental images of it. They are empty of form. But then with this liberation (non-identification) with mind, they can witness and experience the play of form. The formless experiencing form is very different from the formless all mixed up and lost in and identified with form experiencing form.

The self is formless it just believes it is form (and experiences itself as form) due to delusion. Someone steps on your foot, you say "You stepped on me!" They stepped on the body you are merged with, not you. You look in the mirror to see how "you" look. We are identified with our impermanent bodies. Same basic idea with our impermanent thoughts and conditioning. Because of identifying, (ignorance) we don't know (or experience) what we really are. When we stop delusional identifying, through self awareness and understanding, we experience everything through our true perception "true nature," that has no name, no symbol, no image as it is just us, me and you, that which is above and apart from form.

In this moment, as the writer of the above, I can let go of all mental images...then what is left?... where is emptiness, form, or no-form, or enlightenment?.... as these are all ideas...mental images.... so what is left? Funny how we look for an answer as an idea. We are so locked into ideas as reality.

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

Not negating
But rather accepting & embracing
Without anticipating or seeking

Our orientation as such in dynamic stillness is the void of emptiness, in heightened potential, like a compressed spring if one is to draw an analogy ... magnetised.

The potential then, as the void, is vibrant in potent power, the latent becoming kinetic as manifested energy.

As such, both aspects being of the same origin or reality, we may say that Shiv & Shakti are one, metaphorically speaking.

***