BR wrote: ""in deep sleep only deep sleep, just like in the seen only the seen."What then, is deep sleep? A gap in reality? An absence or non-existence?"


An absorption in a state of nothingness or oblivion.

The Abhidhammic tradition calls this state 'resting in bhavanga citta'. If you want to read more: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rcNdDilzilMC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=deep+sleep+resting+in+bhavanga+citta&source=bl&ots=YWkNbbsBiQ&sig=s8BubsfuvAu2HEKZ0h5BFyFXCCs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DY0TVOeYE4fi8AXsmoDYAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=deep%20sleep%20resting%20in%20bhavanga%20citta&f=false

~

BR wrote: "So when things are absent, what is there? Does reality pop in and out of existence? This is the same question as above, since, in my experience, "when all things are absent" and "deep sleep" amount to the same thing."


One who realizes anatta is not afraid of 'fading away', every moment, not just in particular states.

As Thusness told JonLS (Din Robinson) in 2007:


Originally posted by JonLS:
Because we're too busy identifying with thoughts and feelings in the mind and body.
And also busy identifying with the "I Am". The worry has now come to it. Dissolve and passaway, fade out of existence! So be it!

Why can't we fully appreciate our perfection?
Fade away and appreciate "no where". Sleep well!

Greg Goode wrote:

"Stian, cool, get into that strangeness! There is a certain innocent, not-knowing quality to strangeness that counteracts the rush to certainty, the need to arrive, to land.

I still don't get your "no compromise" point. Can you rephrase it, but without the words "between" or "compromise"?

Anything can be denied. And is. There is one prominent Advaita teacher that I like who likes to say "You can't deny that you are the awareness that is hearing these words right now."

This kind of gapless continuity, so prized in Advaita, is readily denied in other approaches to experience:

you. can't. deny. that. you. are. the. awareness. hearing. these. words. right. now.

I remember feeling during one retreat, just how many ways that this could be denied. From a different model of time and experience, there are gaps and fissures all over the place, even in that sentence (hence. the. dots). Each moment is divided within itself, carrying traces of past and future (retention and protention). The first "you"-moment and the second "you"-moment are not necessarily experienced by the same entity. Each "I" is different. Entitification itself is felt as autoimmune, as divided within itself, and any "gaplessness" is nothing more than a paste-job.

Not saying one of these is right and the other wrong. Just pointing out how something so undeniable can readily be denied!
"


~

BR wrote: ""Then "Awareness" is always only manifestation and nothing hidden, nothing intrinsic, there is nothing 'unmanifest' about it."

I see that. That was already the way I understood Awareness. The idea of the separate witness was "smelly" to me. During manifestation, awareness is just the manifestation - there is no place for awareness to be. But when appearances subside, something must remain, appearances must fall "into" something. No? Awareness remains as the potential for experience, like light, invisible in itself, but allowing objects to be seen."


In the Buddhadharma, Consciousness does not exist inherently, in and of itself. So while you may say consciousness is a potential, it is a potential that isn't actualized apart from causes and conditions. This is different from the Advaitic notion that Awareness or Consciousness exists in and of itself independently regardless of the coming and going of conditioned states. In that case, it is already 'inherently self-existent' changelessly all the time, and is not purely 'mere potentiality'.

All the dependencies are totally exerting this manifestation, and 'consciousness' is merely this total exertion. For example, when walking, the entire scenery, wind breeze, and so on, are the total exertion of the various activities -- such as walking. Your walking actualizes that new moment of manifest-consciousness (vision-consciousness, auditory, tactile, etc), your sitting actualizes it, the bird singing actualizes the manifest consciousness, and so on.

And being that everything merely dependently originates, has anything ever been created? For something to be created, there would have to be a substantial entity being born within/besides the appearance. An appearance in and of itself does not imply substantial existents, like a dream does not imply real entities, but if the appearance somehow reference something with core and substance then it would be. Likewise, a mirror reflection never implied that something comes existence inside the mirror, that could stay in existence inside the mirror and then cease to exist later. We know that a mirror reflection is a momentary reflection as the total exertion of all dependencies, but no entity is ever being born. When we walk by the side of a lake, the reflection of the moon moves (totally exerts) along with our movement, obviously nothing is born inside the lake (otherwise it would be static, independent, fixed at one location).

Could the same be true for all other appearances in life? When we see red apple, is there really an 'apple' or 'redness' existing in and of itself somewhere, or merely a totally-exerting/dependently-originating appearance that is a momentary unborn shimmering? (even to call it 'momentary' is merely conventional, as there is no foundational, indivisible, substantially existing moments as posited in Abhidhamma)

By directly apperceiving the nature of 'reflection' (all appearance), the unborn nature of empty-clarity-totalexertion-display is unveiled.

Also, as Thusness wrote in 2012:

5/11/2012 4:36 PM: John: Understanding in terms of potential is ok and good
5/11/2012 4:38 PM: John: Beyond this explanation it has to be understood as mere imputation, ultimately no cause, no potential.


And I wrote earlier this year:

"Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I".
    We can agree that we can substitute 'I' with 'Self' in that sentence ?"

    Yes. "Self" as a convention is not a problem, it is only problem when "Self" is taken as truly existing - as independent, changeless, hidden/ghostly something with self-existence.

    For example, when we talk about "Seeing", one realizes that "Seeing" is just a convention and is just a label for the shapes and colours/the scenery, etc, i.e. "Seeing" is empty of being some hidden, ghostly entity existing in and of itself, rather it is a label for the manifestating transience/interdependencies.

    In hearing, there is no independent hearing or hearer, hearing is just the vivid sound...

    In "Self", there is no truly existing "Self" but is just a label collating the five aggregates...

    In "Weather", there is no truly existing "weather" in and of itself but "weather" is just a label collating the wind, the blowing, the shapes and colours of the blue sky, the darkening, raindrops falling... You do not search for 'weather' or conceive of 'weather' as being some sort of changeless/self-existing source, substratum or container for rain to happen, etc... you realize and penetrate its conventionality and see directly the entire workings in action.

    In "Awareness", there is no changeless/independent "Awareness" in and of itself or existing as some sort of container but "Awareness" is just a label collating the self-luminous transiency that are dependently originating...

    In "Body", there is no truly existing container with substantial shape or boundaries but merely vivid and flickering bodily sensations...

    Same applies for "Buddha-nature", etc etc.

    Even "physical universe"/"matter"/etc is analyzed that way: “In the Pali literature, the mahabhuta ("great elements") or catudhatu ("four elements") are earth, water, fire and air. In early Buddhism, the four elements are a basis for understanding suffering and for liberating oneself from suffering. The earliest Buddhist texts explain that the four primary material elements are the sensory qualities solidity, fluidity, temperature, and mobility; their characterization as earth, water, fire, and air, respectively, is declared an abstraction—instead of concentrating on the fact of material existence, one observes how a physical thing is sensed, felt, perceived.[8]"” (Wiki)

    The convention is OK if understood as mere collating convention, the problem lies in reifying an eternal, changeless, truly existing X (Self/Awareness/etc etc).



~

BR wrote: "Even formless presence in the gap between thoughts or when five senses are shut, a pure Mind presence-awareness, that too is fully manifest and empty of intrinsic existence."

I don't think so, but is it possible that when you refer to awareness, you're referring to the waking state consciousness that vanishes during deep sleep or anesthesia? That I'd agree it's empty and transient, just regular manifestation. But that which witnesses the coming and going of experience, of consciousness even, how can that come and go or be dependent on causes? What would witness THAT in order to claim knowledge about it?


The realization of anatta is realizing that Awareness is not 'The Witness' behind everything, the 'Witnessing' (which is not denied), is merely and always only 'manifestation'. It has no independent, separate, changeless existence apart from manifestation in the same way as 'weather' has no independent, separate, changeless existence apart from the everchanging manifestation of colours and sensations we call wind blowing, rain drops, etc. And then we realize those very manifestation which we call colours, sensations and so forth, those too are mere unborn total exertions.

The same goes even for so called the formless witnessing awareness, even that too is realized to be empty of self/Self behind/besides/within/in-between those instantiations or manifestations (of formless consciousness).

As pointed out -- in the Direct Path (Atmananda style), deep sleep is not an object to which the Witness watches, rather, deep sleep IS the witnessing awareness itself, there is no duality whatsoever. The same goes for dream and waking state. Although the Atmananda path establishes oneself as the Witness in the beginning, the duality of the Witness and witnessed collapses after all those investigations. Therefore, the position or reference-point of the 'Witness' is also seen through and deconstructed in Direct Path.

However Buddhism would investigate and deconstruct that in a different way, in a non-subsuming way, non-reductionist manner, by realizing the dependent origination and insubstantiality of X (whatever the subject or object is being investigated), not by subsuming one pole to another (subject to object, or object to subject).


~

"If you understand what I just wrote above, then you'll also see why 'what it is made of' does not apply since there is nothing besides/behind/within/apart from the very manifestation."
Yes, but the manifestation has to be made of something, right? I understand that, visually, for example, redness is not a quality of the apple; redness IS the apple. But redness has to me made of something. Goode's and Spira's direct path would say redness is just seeing, which is just awareness. Different names for one same substance.

Redness may be a temporary manifestation, but it exists, right? It is experienced - or it is experience. As what does it exist? Redness, when vanishes, cannot fall into oblivion, it must dissolve IN something or AS something - like a wave disappearing in water, or a dream-mountain dissipating into the dreaming consciousness.

I know you said that there is an ultimate truth, but not an ultimate reality, but what are the ordinary experiences made of? It feels like according to this view all is happening in mid air - or not even that! The conventional view is that an apple is made of atoms. The Vedantic view is that an apple is made of experiencing or awareness. I feel like I'm repeating the same question of a few hours back, but the Buddhist view is...?


Buddhadharma (at least in the Middle Way view) is a completely non-reductive and non-subsuming path. It is a non-affirming negation*. For example, we do not refute 'Apple' by reducing it to, or affirming, an underlying substrate such as 'Awareness'. When we see the emptiness of 'X', we realize there is nothing behind/besides/within the appearance to which those appearance can be imputed as characteristics belonging to an entity ('redness OF The Apple'), and those appearance are fundamentally non-arising. But we do not subsume them into an underlying, inherently existing substrate.


By realizing the emptiness of X, we do not posit the non-existence or nothingness of everything, nor do we posit the existence of something more fundamental or foundational. Rather, by realizing the emptiness of X, we directly taste the total exertion of the dependencies, functionality, appearance of which X is conventionally/nominally designated upon. X cannot be established in them nor apart from them inherently, but dependent on those functions/appearance/dependencies, a nominal convention is designated like a placeholder. (Same as 'Weather')

Buddhadharma leaves nothing uninvestigated, therefore, even 'Awareness' is to be investigated in the same light -- could 'Awareness' be inherently existing, or could it be like 'Weather'? Could it be like what Bahiya Sutta described? This is not to deny 'Awareness' (just like we wouldn't deny 'Weather'), but only its inherent existence. If Awareness is inherently existing, then container metaphors such as 'everything is manifesting within Awareness and subsiding back to it, while Awareness remains unchanged' would make sense. However, if Awareness is only conventionally designated as such like weather, would that make sense? Do you say 'rain and clouds arise and subside within Weather, while Weather remains unaffected'? Sure, we aren't denying the conventional efficacy of Weather here, but does Weather exist apart from rain/wind blowing/etc (or within them) as a truly existing container? To say that Weather 'exists' inside the rain would likewise be superfluous... the entire notion of 'existence', 'non-existence' can be penetrated. What is conventionally designated is empty of real existence, is merely inferential and not referential.

When Anatta is directly realized -- in the seen only the seen, no 'you' or 'seer' or 'seeing' in/apart/besides/behind the seen, (and likewise for the heard/sensed/cognized/etc), then everything is revealed to be a self-luminous play. The luminosity is not posited to be a container behind or underlying things, any more than 'weather' is understood to be a container behind or underlying the rain and rolling clouds, etc. Rather, directly taste the intense aliveness and luminosity of 'only the seen (and the heard, the cognized)' without any intermediary or center or boundaries! In the same way when we see through the veil of our imputed inherency of 'weather', we will see/hear/touch the very appearance of life which we conventionally label 'weather'. Weather cannot be found within nor apart from those appearance (the sensation of 'breeze' being felt, the sound of rain dripping, the grey patches of vision) which is basis of designation. Self, Awareness, Mind, Body, are also deconstructed through insight in this manner. After this, look into total exertion and the non-arising of that.


*Malcolm Smith (Loppon Namdrol):
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."


~

BR wrote: "Sorry if I'm being a tough nut to crack, or maybe this is an intellectual struggle that is pointless when direct seeing happens. But I find that these intellectual refinements really help in dissolving the mental structures that filter our perceptions.

In fact, please don't think that I'm totally lost in my head. Aha! In fact, after asking you "who are you", a few hours back, I started pondering on the absurdity of the question and a very interesting experiential clarity opened up. The feeling of self briefly dissolved (nothing spectacular) and the I-lessness of experience became quite obvious.

Sometimes, reading your comments, I just feel a bit lost as to what to do, what practice is there for this kind of stuff. I know that you've mentioned repeatedly the Bahiya sutta and self-enquiry, but I don't know where exactly I'm supposed to put my feet on. I've read the sutta, and I think I get the main point of it, and self-inquiry (or investigation of experience) is something I've been doing for a few years now.

My knowledge about Buddhism is quite modest compared to what I've been seeing in your groups and forums, so I'm wondering if your path is a traditional one that follows a certain number of steps, or if it something a bit more abstract or alternative to the conventional curriculum...

I have a certain amount of experience and insight, mainly through Advaita, but I'm quite open to the possibility of investigating Awareness, the supposed ultimate reality. I'm just not 100% sure where the road actually is. I have your e-book, but I haven't managed to read it yet.

Please excuse me if all this is made clear there. In fact, I've been longing to find a teacher who could walk me to the end of the path. The desire to realize the truth is growing ever stronger and it's not easy to know where the road is..."



Which path of investigation to take is entirely up to you, if it helps, go for it -- if you find Direct Path and Advaita investigations helpful for you then why not try to apply it and see where it takes you? And then, if you feel like investigating into anatta and emptiness, go into it... see where it takes you. I understood anatta and emptiness intellectually for 8 years, but my first 4 years was spent practicing Advaita, self-inquiry and so on.

Why is that so? My Chinese Buddhist tradition where I came from was Awareness-teaching based, so that is one source of influence, so did other contemporary authors like Eckhart Tolle, and teachers like Ramana Maharshi and the other Advaitin/Neo-Advaitin teachers. Thusness did not tell me to practice self-inquiry straight away (at first he was advising more on Vipassana), in fact it was only about 4 years after he met me that he advised that I do self-inquiry, since I was very much into the Awareness teachings. Then when I'm done with self-inquiry due to doubtless self-realization, I looked further.

That being said, I think Thusness is advising more on Awareness realization for beginners lately. He wrote to someone in 2011:


Hi TC,



What you described is fine and it can be considered vipassana meditation too but you must be clear what is the main objective of practicing that way.  Ironically, the real purpose only becomes obvious after the arising insight of anatta.  What I gathered so far from your descriptions are not so much about anatta or empty nature of phenomena but are rather drawn towards Awareness practice.  So it will be good to start from understanding what Awareness truly is.  All the method of practices that u mentioned  will lead to a quality of experience that is non-conceptual.  You can have non-conceptual experience of sound, taste...etc...but more importantly in my opinion, u should start from having a direct, non-conceptual experience of Awareness (first glimpse of our luminous essence).  Once you have a ‘taste’ of what Awareness is, you can then think of ‘expanding’ this bare awareness and gradually understand what does ‘heightening and expanding’ mean from the perspective of Awareness. 



Next, although you hear and see ‘non-dual, anatta and dependent origination’ all over the place in An Eternal Now’s forum (the recent Toni Packer’s books you bought are about non-dual and anatta), there is nothing wrong being ‘dualistic’ for a start.  Even after direct non-conceptual experience of Awareness, our view will still continue to be dualistic; so do not have the idea that being dualistic is bad although it prevents thorough experience of liberation.



The comment given by Dharma Dan is very insightful but of late, I realized that it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence directly before proceeding into such understanding.  Sometimes understanding something too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual.  Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization.
Here is a compilation of articles by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang, who is very clear: https://app.box.com/s/ceb9i7wsk0lkfl2sjex97ai56l1k52pf 


Some good articles and videos on anatta for our Chinese readers :) He is a doctor living in Taiwan and is a lineaged Soto Zen teacher (Japanese Zen lineage). Sometimes he teaches in Singapore, Hong Kong and China.

洪文亮老师:

我們的心量本來是很广大的,应用无穷。六根应眼見色,应耳闻声 ,应鼻嗅香,应舌知 味,应身知触,应意知法,一切施为运动,皆是法身。六根本来毫无罣碍,无爱无憎,平等 平等地随缘生灭,自然解脱。我们之所以感觉有对象、有东西存在,是因为有「我」在。证 道的禅师讲「眼前无一物」,他也看到东西,但是他没有「我看到」这种妄想。「我」是妄想 出來的,如果这个妄想脱落了,我们会非常清楚「眼前无一物」是什么境界。有「我」的妄 念,才會看到獨立存在的對象,那就是「眼前有一物」 。证人无我,一切都是法身。看到你、 看到花、听到声音,都是法身,遇缘则显,即生即灭,变化无碍,所以是空。我们把五蕴的 身心看得很实在,用这个态度学佛,想要用「我」去转色身、证法身,「因地不真,果招迂曲」, 一开始就走错路了。
-- 洪文亮老师 http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ013/bj013133067.pdf
“不 要它来它也来,什么东西要来你事先也不知道。念头本身是这样,就是一个natural state,自然的生理现象。自然的生理现象就是你的法性的显现。缘生的嘛!那个念头是心,心的作用怎么生起?缘生的谁知道?佛也不知道!为什么这个念头 而不是别的念头?谁知道?你也不知道!来了之后你才知道,哦哦哦,想到这个,这个念来了。所以不是在你的控制之下,这个念头来,对不对?所以这个是缘生, 缘生就是根本没有你。因为没有你,所以你什么念头要来,你也事先也不知道,来了之后才知道,表示没有你,对不对?这不是道理!否则你有本事说念头要来以前 知道什么念头要来。你看,你想的话,那个念头就不来了。否则,考试的时候,记了一个生字。那考试的时候,“哎哎,那个字是什么意思?”想了半天,硬想硬 想,记不得就记不得。如果你有自己的话,你那怎么会忘掉呢?我要记住就我要记住了?缘生的缘不够,所以它就不上来。懂吗?所以念头,在打坐的时候,有什么 念头来。那个不是你请来的,它是缘生来的。缘生来的东西有没有自性?梦幻一样嘛。念头跟那梦幻一样。你对着梦幻认真起来,你不是傻瓜吗?但是你知道。知道 有什么不好?知道这个是梦幻缘生的有什么不好?你想拒绝掉,你是又卖弄自己。懂吗?“这个念头不好,我要拿掉”。你不是又主张自己了吗?“哦,佛,阿弥陀 佛的那个影子,阿弥陀佛的声音是好,我希望他来”。你看,又动念头自己在主张了。“啊,这个念头不好,这个现的相不好,我要拿掉”。又在主张自己了,又自 己跑进来了,那个“假我”又跑进来舞台了。”
-- 洪文亮老师 http://www.hongzen.com/show.aspx?id=381&cid=13


Videos:

http://www.hongzen.com/show.aspx?id=517&cid=11 - 不昧因果 - 没有灵魂怎么轮回?



The Natural State of No-Self: a ChatGPT translation of Zen teacher Hong Wen Liang
洪文亮老师:
Master Hong Wenliang:
我們的心量本來是很广大的,应用无穷。
Our mind is originally vast and its applications are infinite.
六根应眼見色,应耳闻声 ,应鼻嗅香,应舌知 味,应身知触,应意知法,一切施为运动,皆是法身。
The six sense organs function as follows: the eyes see colors, the ears hear sounds, the nose smells scents, the tongue tastes flavors, the body feels touch, and the mind knows mental objects. All actions are the functioning of the Dharmakaya/Dharma body.
六根本来毫无罣碍,无爱无憎,平等 平等地随缘生灭,自然解脱。
The six sense organs are originally without any obstruction, without attachment or aversion, and in equalness arise and cease according to conditions, naturally liberating.
我们之所以感觉有对象、有东西存在,是因为有「我」在。
The reason we perceive objects and things as existing is because there is an "I" present.
证 道的禅师讲「眼前无一物」,他也看到东西,但是他没有「我看到」这种妄想。
Zen masters who have realized the Way say, "There is not a single thing before the eyes." They also see things, but they do not have the delusion of "I see."
「我」是妄想 出來的,如果这个妄想脱落了,我们会非常清楚「眼前无一物」是什么境界。
The "I" is a delusion. If this delusion is eliminated, we will clearly understand what the state of "There is not a single thing before the eyes" is.
有「我」的妄 念,才會看到獨立存在的對象,那就是「眼前有一物」 。
With the delusion of "I," we perceive objects as existing independently, which is "There is a thing before the eyes."
证人无我,一切都是法身。
Realized persons/beings are without self; everything is the Dharmakaya/Dharma body.
看到你、 看到花、听到声音,都是法身,遇缘则显,即生即灭,变化无碍,所以是空。
Seeing you, seeing flowers, and hearing sounds are all the Dharmakaya/Dharma body. They manifest when conditions are met, arise and cease instantly, change without hindrance, and thus are empty.
我们把五蕴的 身心看得很实在,用这个态度学佛,想要用「我」去转色身、证法身,「因地不真,果招迂曲」, 一开始就走错路了。
We regard the body and mind of the five aggregates as very substantial and use this attitude to study Buddhism. We want to use "I" to transform the form body and prove the Dharmakaya/Dharma body. "The cause is not true, and the result is twisted." We have taken the wrong path from the very beginning.
“不 要它来它也来,什么东西要来你事先也不知道。念头本身是这样,就是一个natural state,自然的生理现象。自然的生理现象就是你的法性的显现。缘生的嘛!
"It comes even if you don't want it, and you don't know what's coming in advance. Thoughts themselves are like this, a natural state, a natural physiological phenomenon. The natural physiological phenomenon is the manifestation of your Dharma Nature. It's conditioned arising!
那个念头是心,心的作用怎么生起?缘生的谁知道?佛也不知道!为什么这个念头 而不是别的念头?谁知道?你也不知道!来了之后你才知道,哦哦哦,想到这个,这个念来了。
That thought is the mind, how does the function of the mind arise? Who knows about conditioned arising? Even Buddha doesn't know! Why is it this thought and not another thought? Who knows? You don't know either! After it comes, you realize, oh, oh, oh, you thought of this, this thought has come.
所以不是在你的控制之下,这个念头来,对不对?所以这个是缘生, 缘生就是根本没有你。因为没有你,所以你什么念头要来,你也事先也不知道,来了之后才知道,表示没有你,对不对?这不是道理!
So it's not under your control, this thought comes, right? So this is conditioned arising, and conditioned arising means there is fundamentally no you. Because there is no you, you don't know in advance what thought will come, and you only know after it comes, which shows there is no you, right? This is not a theory!
否则你有本事说念头要来以前 知道什么念头要来。
Otherwise, if you were capable, you would know what thought would come before it comes.
你看,你想的话,那个念头就不来了。
You see, if you think about it, that thought won't come.
否则,考试的时候,记了一个生字。那考试的时候,“哎哎,那个字是什么意思?”想了半天,硬想硬想,记不得就记不得。
Otherwise, during an exam, you memorize a new word. During the exam, you think, "Ah, what does that word mean?" You think hard for a long time, but if you can't remember, you just can't.
如果你有自己的话,你那怎么会忘掉呢?我要记住就我要记住了?
If you had your own self, how could you forget? If I want to remember, then I will remember?
缘生的缘不够,所以它就不上来。懂吗?
The conditions for conditioned arising are not enough, so it won't come up. Understand?
所以念头,在打坐的时候,有什么 念头来。
So, thoughts, during meditation, whatever thoughts come.
那个不是你请来的,它是缘生来的。
That is not something you invite; it comes from conditioned arising.
缘生来的东西有没有自性?梦幻一样嘛。
Does something that arises from conditions have self-nature? It's like a dream, right?
念头跟那梦幻一样。你对着梦幻认真起来,你不是傻瓜吗?
Thoughts are like dreams. If you take dreams seriously, aren't you a fool?
但是你知道。知道有什么不好?知道这个是梦幻缘生的有什么不好?
But you know. What's wrong with knowing? What's wrong with knowing that this is a dream-like conditioned arising?
你想拒绝掉,你是又卖弄自己。懂吗?
If you want to reject it, you are just showing off yourself. Understand?
“这个念头不好,我要拿掉”。你不是又主张自己了吗?
"This thought is not good, I want to remove it." Aren't you advocating for yourself again?
“哦,佛,阿弥陀佛的那个影子,阿弥陀佛的声音是好,我希望他来”。你看,又动念头自己在主张了。
"Oh, Buddha, the shadow of Amitabha Buddha, the voice of Amitabha Buddha is good, I hope he comes." You see, you are advocating for yourself again with this thought.
“啊,这个念头不好,这个现的相不好,我要拿掉”。
"Ah, this thought is not good, this present appearance is not good, I want to remove it."
又在主张自己了,又自己跑进来了,
Again advocating for oneself, and again, the self comes in,
那个“假我”又跑进来舞台了。”
that "false self" comes back onto the stage again.
-- 洪文亮老师

Kyle wrote in Facebook:

Kyle Dixon: Raan, you write:

"Ok the comment I made that brought about all this discussion was that I do not believe in karma or rebirth or any of that and Kyle told me it was not a matter of belief and went into a definition of karma that was not standard by common usage. I do understand that the Buddha's view on karma and reincarnation came from the insight of Anatta and so his understanding of these beliefs was different than the usual understanding.. assuming they obtain at all in reality, which at the time was the assumption. However to me it would be the same as describing the resurrection of Christ in terms of Anatta if it were assumed that this did indeed occur. However, I do not assume anything like that and find it irrelevant to awakening and liberation."

I'm curious because you speak of anātman, which traditionally is synonymous with emptiness and can be applied to anything, however I understand that you're using the term anātman [anatta] in the context of a 'self', 'entity', 'agent', 'individual', etc.

Realizing anātman as such, is predicated upon a prior impression that a truly established self or agent [ātman] exists within or apart from the aggregates. That conviction undoubtably occurs, so much so that the majority of individuals go about their entire lives never even questioning that impression of being an inherent identity or self. Those who do encounter the possibility that there is no inherent self will still struggle to actualize a genuine realization of that principle.

Awakening and liberation occur because those misconceptions are overturned via experiential insight into the unreality of a truly established individual agent or entity. If awakening and/or liberation are the cessation of that affliction, then why would that affliction be irrelevant to awakening or liberation?
4 hrs · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon: Raan, you write:

"If instead the discussion of karma is a discussion of causality that is another matter entirely. The contention again was that Karma was not a belief and then the discussion of it became somewhat obscure without establishing it as anything more than a belief. If instead we are discussion causality which is more than a belief but a scientifically useful and proven concept then it is not a belief but then it is not karma in the sense that karma is used generally as per the dictionary and encyclopedic use of that term.. to say nothing of rebirth."

The difference between materialist causality, and the nature of karmic causality is incredibly vast. Honestly the true meaning of karma in the context of the buddhadharma does not even really apply to the materialist interpretation of causality. Sure, 'karma' means 'action' and so you can say that there are gross karmic forces playing out in the context of materialist causality, but the meaning is entirely different when compared to karmic causation associated with pratītyasamutpāda and so on.

Since ultimately causality of any stripe is empty, one would be hard pressed to state that 'causality' as a "scientifically useful and proven concept" is actually something which has been "proven". It is a useful inference, and is sound conventionally, however ultimately science is functioning within a certain paradigm which is predicated on various assumptions that one could argue fail to ultimately hold water, as everything ultimately does.

At any rate I believe your assertion that the reasoning behind 'karma' is obscure (or that the discussion "became somewhat obscure") is most likely a result of the type of view you hold. Without properly understanding causes and conditions in the context of buddhism these notions are most likely not going to make sense.
3 hrs · Unlike · 2
Kyle Dixon: Raan writes:

"From the standpoint of Anatta realization there is apparently nothing and no one to be reborn and on one and nothing to which karma might apply even if these were not a matter of belief. So I have not seen yet how any of the above discussion or definition has established these as more than beliefs anyway. Do we need to swallow the litany of dependent origination blindly after all? I understand the intent of it certainly however I do not agree entirely with the order and structure. The question remains as to how ignorance might occur in the first place. It is tantamount to the Theistic "problem of evil" I have yet to see a Theodicy, if you will, of ignorance. But really when it comes down to it, it does not matter since a realization of Anatta dispels it all anyway."

-----------------

Regarding the idea of no-self and rebirth: from the standpoint of anatta or otherwise there has never, ever once at any time been someone or something for karma to apply to. That is the entire point of this, and that is why realizing anatta, etc., is possible. If there truly were a 'self' endowed with valid existence then anatta would be an impossibility.

Buddhism is never dealing with 'selves', it is dealing with causes and conditions, afflictive processes and habitual patterns. The 'self' is merely a useful (ultimately unfounded) convention attributed to the sum total of those processes. There is no self enduring from moment to moment, there is patterns of conduct, behavior, grasping, which are simultaneous causes and effects for further proliferation of the same expressions.

For example, from Nāgārjuna's Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:

"Empty dharmas are entirely produced
from dharmas strictly empty;
dharmas without a self and [not] of a self.
Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals,
fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes.
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing has transfered.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
he is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’."

And in his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:

"Question: Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?
Reply: All living beings are causes and results."

And in the same text:

"Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next."

And lastly from Lopon Kunga Namdrol:
The point is that the question is phrased wrong requiring at best an ambigious answer that will confuse more than edify.

Buddha in fact discussed this with Sharputra saying that if he answers the question "yes there is something that undergoes birth" people will become confused and assuem there is a permanent self that undergoes retribution of action and so on. Likewise, if he answers the question "no, there is nothing which undergoes rebirth" likewise there are those who will assume there are no consequences of action and so on and will therefore feel no compelling need observe the principles of karma and so on.

Therefore when asked the question "what takes rebirth" he points out that question itself is flawed.

The question should be "Why is there birth?" The answere to that question is easy. There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action.

As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.

In Madhyamaka it is explained there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts. Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the aggreates as a nominally designated "person".
3 hrs · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon So there is a conventional self, but that doesn't truly constitute a self. The self is an expression of karma, where there is karma there is conditioning, and the perception of a self appears as a result of those processes. There is no actual self (nor actual absence thereof) though, in any sense of the term.

If those karmic propensities are allowed to proliferate, then the conditions persist. The continuity of those afflictive propensities is reincarnation. What reincarnates is habitual patterns, however again, there is no actual self within that patterning. That is why when one's karma is exhausted then liberation occurs.

The entire occurrence is equivalent to an illusion, it is no different than going to bed at night and waking up the next morning with the impression that the same entity who went to sleep the night before is now waking up to begin a new day. Those processes of confusion beget further confused processes. When confusion is overturned, then those processes are seen for what they are, devoid of substantiality
3 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon: And if the issue arises from a Zen standpoint; here are a few excerpts from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō:

5.386 "If people who study Buddha Dharma have no genuine faith or true mindfulness, they will certainly dispense with and ignore [the law of] causality."

6.437 "denying karma is wrong view, zazen with wrong view is useless"

7.504 "Tathagatas [Buddhas] never go beyond clarifying cause and effect"

7.510 "Students of the way cannot dismiss cause and effect. If you discard cause and effect, you will ultimately deviate from practice-realization."
3 hrs · Unlike · 4