Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

mjaviem wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:48 pm
xabir wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:14 pm ...
Wow! That's a lot of text!

I'm not interested in redditors and authors. Please, tell me, what are you trying to tell me?
There is no awareness outside the 'all' (eighteen dhatus).

I like a fellow dharma friend (who also realised anatman)'s summary:

"Jayson MPaul
Sangye Gyatso none of these things are about nihilism, although that is a real danger for those who misunderstand emptiness. No Mind is what is always already true. It has no existence of its own. No mind apart from phenomena, no phenomena apart from mind. This is what Soh Wei Yu meant when he said there is no true existence of mind."

That is what Bodhidharma pointed out.

Or to put it very succinctly in my own words:

There is no seer, nor even a seeing, besides colors. Colors 'see'.
There is no hearer, nor even a hearing, besides sounds. Sounds 'hear'.

Or what I explained to a friend yesterday:


"Means no stable vantagepoint of a knower “behind” that receives sensory impressions “in front”

Consciousness is not a singular thing either but simply the cognizance happening wherever arising due to conditions

Therefore in the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard with no you (no knower, no doer, no agent) in terms of it
Then consciousness is no longer reified into an internal stable reference point or background behind experience from or through which whats seen and heard is experienced “from”
This is what ajahn brahm means here also:
Ajahn Brahm:

“Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen, ... in the cognized will merely be what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that'. When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

What does it mean "you will not be 'because of that'"? The Pāli is na tena. Tena is the instrumental of the word for 'that'. Na is the negative. It means, literally, "not because of that, not through that, not by that". It means in essence, you will not assume that there is a self, a soul, a me; because of, through, or by; the seen or the heard or the sensed or the cognized. The Buddha is saying that once you have penetrated the truth of sensory experience, by suppressing the Hindrances through Jhāna, you will see that there is no 'doer', nor a 'knower', behind sensory experience. No longer will you be able to use sensory experience as evidence for a self. Descartes' famous "I am because I think" is refuted. You will not be because of thinking, nor because of seeing, hearing or sensing. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be because of that (any sensory experience)".

When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life. In the words of the doctor in the original series of Star Trek, "It is life, Jim, but not as we know it"! There is no longer any sense of self, or soul, at the centre of experience. You are no more 'in that'.

Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape non-existence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world). The last phrase comprehensively confounded the sophists!

In summary, the Buddha advised both Bāhiya and Venerable Mālunkyaputta to experience the Jhānas to suppress the Five Hindrances. Thereby one will discern with certainty the absence of a self or a soul behind the sensory process. Consequently, sensory experience will never again be taken as evidence of a 'knower' or a 'doer': such that you will never imagine a self or a soul at the centre of experience, nor beyond, nor anywhere else. Bāhiya's Teaching put in a nutshell the way to the realization of No-Self, Anattā. "Just this", concluded the Buddha "is the end of suffering".” – Ajahn Brahmavamso, https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Ajah ... ACHING.htm "
Last edited by xabir on Sat May 21, 2022 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:44 pm
xabir wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:26 pm Buddha never taught an unchanging standalone mind.
no self, impermanence and suffering are the ideas what arise because of the deluded dull mind.
Mahaparinirvana Sutra wrote:Being subject to the veils of afflictions (klesas) and
ignorance (avidya), there arises in them the deluded mind. The self, they reckon, is
selfless. The eternal, they reckon, is impermanent. The pure, they reckon, is impure.
Happiness, they reckon, is suffering.
Because they are subject to this veil of afflictions,
while they may give rise to these ideas, they do not penetrate their meaning, just as that
drunken person who in a place that is not spinning gives rise to the perception of it
being spun.
because of afflictions, it is not possible to penetrate the meaning(self, dharmakaya, happiness) by using these(no self..) ideas, because naturally for a deluded mind, everything is presenting itself as no self already
wrote:The self, then, is the Buddha in meaning. The eternal is the essential body
(dharmakaya) in meaning. Happiness is Nirvana in meaning. The pure is the Dharma in
meaning.
someone just thinks he has realized things, but for real they take things face value, as things are: impermanent, no self... People here regularly ask to point out where the self is..
So then why not stop desiring clinging aggregates? they are not self, no self is found in them.
https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.’
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṁ, so dukkhanirodho’ti.
At this point, much has been done by that mendicant.
Ettāvatāpi kho, āvuso, bhikkhuno bahukataṁ hoti.
whilst everything is no self, that's just jumping on the gun, if you haven't find the self, permanence beforehand
You have mistaken the I AM (see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html and https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com ... mness.html ) or Atman Brahman for Buddha nature.

Regarding the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, I explained very clearly how the Buddha nature doctrine cannot be understood in terms of eternalist extreme:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2016/ ... ayana.html

Here's an excerpt:




Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Thus, the Lanka says:

All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.

And:

Although tathaagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.


If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.

And:

`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:

"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/b) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

............

Lankavatara Sutra then states:
"O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).


...............


As for what is the definitive meaning of Buddha-Nature, the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... &start=120

The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.

There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:19 pm ** according to Mahaparinirvana sutta, buddhas have same fetters to deal with as stream entry.(no quote, take it with salt), idea is that the unmoving is not to be downplayed.
The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra or the Pali Canon one?

Can you provide the precise excerpt which said Buddhas have fetters?

Both the Mahayana and Pali Canon understanding is that Buddha and Arahants do not have fetters.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:20 pm
mjaviem wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:48 pm
xabir wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:14 pm ...
Wow! That's a lot of text!

I'm not interested in redditors and authors. Please, tell me, what are you trying to tell me?
How I understand the Reddit post is that the idea of some "Awareness" or "Mind" outside the "all" is incorrect.
If you try to look for your Awareness, you will find nothing. You may find a sensation, a feeling, or a perception. But Awareness cannot exist, it only exists as a complete inference, a conjecture, a made-up projection.
Thanks for that, xabir.

What's not clear to me is whether the Thai Forest Ajahns who talk about such an Awareness are making a mistake, or, more charitably, are either being misunderstood or are pointing their students to examine the sense of Awareness carefully. The latter is clearly an important thing to do.

:heart:
Mike
A lot of Thai Forest Ajahns are clearly eternalists, that I have no doubt after reading many of them.

A few like Ajahn Brahm are very clear about the anatta part. And he himself, having gone through the phases from I AM to anatta and dependent origination (he described it in his book) similar to phases in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html

Ajahn Brahm himself criticised in his book and in talks, that high monks (referring to his thai forest tradition) often fall into the Hindu mistake of reifying the Poo Roo. So he is clearly aware of this problem.

And I must say this is not only a problem with Thai Forest but also in many Mahayana and Vajrayana sub schools. But even in these schools, there are those that are exceptionally clear and do not fall into the extremes.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 3:29 pm i think you are going too far with the mind being anatta thing. It prolly explains non-grasping which is the basis of the absorption, what else?
No, it is not some state of absorption.

How can you read this and come away thinking it is a state of absorption? You are clearly not reading carefully:


"But how could one [even] gain the ability to know that it is no-mind [that sees, hears, feels, and knows]?"
"Just try to find out in every detail: What appearance does mind have? And if it can be apprehended: is [what is apprehended] mind or not? Is [mind] inside or outside, or somewhere in between? As long as one looks for mind in these three locations, one's search will end in failure. Indeed, searching it anywhere will end in failure. That's exactly why it is known as no-mind."
...
"Just be totally aware in all affairs! No-mind is nothing other than practice; there is no other practice. Thus you'll realize that no-mind is everything, and that extinction (nirvana) is nothing other than no-mind."
12
At this, the disciple all at once greatly awakened and realized for the first time that there is no thing apart from mind, and no mind apart from things. All of his actions became utterly free. Having broken through the net of all doubt, he was freed of all obstruction.

-----


Anyway besides Bodhidharma there are plenty of sutras, suttas, masters of old times and modern times and in each of the Buddhist traditions, that have come to realize anatta.

Here's one, from one of the most famous Buddhist masters in the world, Thich Nhat Hanh:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/ ... er-of.html

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

---------------- Comments by Thusness/PasserBy: "...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."




.............


Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.

There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.

Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:30 pm You have mistaken the I AM (see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html and https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com ... mness.html ) or Atman Brahman for Buddha nature.

Regarding the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, I explained very clearly how the Buddha nature doctrine cannot be understood in terms of eternalist extreme:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2016/ ... ayana.html

Here's an excerpt:
Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
I agree what Malcolm is saying.
Reacting to what he wrote as i see it, the true self is coming into fore when conditions are met. Conditional things themselves doesn't have svabhava.
diamond sutra.. wrote: Dharma does not arise alone.
Relying on conditions it is born.
The Way is not practiced in vain.
Meeting conditions there is a response.
..there is no-one to seek nor practice to do, other than finding a response, it is logical since illusory things doesn't make a scratch.
Baizi Bei wrote:There is no work to do, much less someone to seek.
The true and constant must respond to phenomena;
the eternalists self or non-buddhist assertion of self, i believe are the ordinary people who have the sakkaya ditthi - that the conditioned things are the self.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:34 pm
auto wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:19 pm ** according to Mahaparinirvana sutta, buddhas have same fetters to deal with as stream entry.(no quote, take it with salt), idea is that the unmoving is not to be downplayed.
The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra or the Pali Canon one?

Can you provide the precise excerpt which said Buddhas have fetters?

Both the Mahayana and Pali Canon understanding is that Buddha and Arahants do not have fetters.
the mahayana one
you can find the assertion elsewhere,
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: For an astute person hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has been produced.
Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, paṇḍitassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṁ kāyo samudāgato.
So there is the duality of this body and external name and form. Contact depends on this duality. When contacted through one or other of the six sense fields, the astute person experiences pleasure and pain.
Iti ayañceva kāyo bahiddhā ca nāmarūpaṁ, itthetaṁ dvayaṁ, dvayaṁ paṭicca phasso saḷevāyatanāni, yehi phuṭṭho paṇḍito sukhadukkhaṁ paṭisaṁvedayati etesaṁ vā aññatarena.

What, then, is the difference between the foolish and the astute?”
Tatra, bhikkhave, ko viseso ko adhippayāso kiṁ nānākaraṇaṁ paṇḍitassa bālenā”ti?
don't blame me of taking things out of context.. read that part years back
mahapari..Yamamoto pdf p515 wrote: Bodhisattva Kasyapa said: "O World-Honoured One! If this is so, why are srotapannas,
sakrdagamins and arhats not all called srotapannas?"
"O good man! Those from the stage of srotapanna up to all Buddhas could well be called
srotapanna.
If it is not the case that those from the sakrdagamin stage up to the Buddha do
not possess the nature of the srotapanna, how could there be such as from sakrdagamin up to
the Buddha? All beings have two kinds of name, which are: 1) old, and 2) objective. As a
common mortal, one has a name of the secular world. When one has entered the Way, one is
called "srotapanna". When this is first gained, one is called srotapanna; gained later, one is
called sakrdagamin. Such a person is called srotapanna and sakrdagamin. The same is the case
with the Buddha, too.
(if to nitpick) don't say having fetters, its wrong to say like that. Ordinary person doesn't have fetters either, till they arise.
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view,
“Sakkāyadiṭṭhiṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
doubt,
vicikicchaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
misapprehension of precepts and observances,
sīlabbataparāmāsaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
sensual desire,
kāmacchandaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
and ill will.
byāpādaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi.
That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”
Evaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, dhāremi bhagavatā desitāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.

“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way?
“Kassa kho nāma tvaṁ, mālukyaputta, imāni evaṁ pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni desitāni dhāresi?
Last edited by auto on Sat May 21, 2022 8:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara »

Moderator note: this thread has veered into Mahayana territory. Please restrict comments to the issue of the Thai Forest Tradition. Off- topic posts will be deleted.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

Sam Vara wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:09 pm Moderator note: this thread has veered into Mahayana territory. Please restrict comments to the issue of the Thai Forest Tradition. Off- topic posts will be deleted.
okay
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:46 pm ..
When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."
Got to now speak without mahayana, mods order.

The no-self vision what results in transforming the everyday bias to enjoying this very moment, well it isn't different from the notions of just being aware. Whatever teachers, traditions all them talk about this basic state.

It is possible to know it, if you like then you may thing it is obtained because of no-self vision. And it is the hyper no-mind state.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:38 pm ..
When being aware, there is also the knower or ability to know that you are aware. Why that agency is hindrance or something to be removed?
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:48 pm Conditional things themselves doesn't have svabhava.
So are unconditional things. I can quote Mahayana sutras on that, but since the moderator has spoken, I shall quote purely Pali suttas on this subject:

Anatta, unlike the other two seals, covers both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena such as cessation or unbinding [nirvana]. (The three marks are: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent" sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1sHHe5M8-V )


the eternalists self or non-buddhist assertion of self, i believe are the ordinary people who have the sakkaya ditthi - that the conditioned things are the self.
By reifying an unconditioned Self, you are no different from all the Hindus and Advaitins. Advaitins posit the conditional self is illusory, only the unconditioned deathless Self (capital S)is real

From Bhikkhu Bodhi's endnote to the sutta:

We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare, “There is no self”: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."

-- viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25102&hilit=thanis ... Y&start=90
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 2:49 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:38 pm ..
When being aware, there is also the knower or ability to know that you are aware. Why that agency is hindrance or something to be removed?
It is not so much removing agency as a hindrance but realizing there never was agent or agency, only actions without agent/watcher/doer/experiencer. Much like a rope mistaken to be a snake, the snake is simply a hallucination or misinterpretation of the rope that never was.

There never was a knower or knowing besides known. Known is self-knowing. No seer or seeing besides colors and so on. That is what is always already the case, consciousness is simply cognizance happening wherever what's seen, heard, smelled, etc, manifest due to conditions.

As I said earlier, "Consciousness is not a singular thing either but simply the cognizance happening wherever arising due to conditions

Therefore in the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard with no you (no knower, no doer, no agent) in terms of it
Then consciousness is no longer reified into an internal stable reference point or background behind experience from or through which whats seen and heard is experienced “from”"

There is no agent, no agency. If a self is held to exist, that causes bondage and not liberation. Clinging to self and subject object duality is the cause of bondage. Ignorance of the empty yet luminous nature of mind and appearance is the cause of bondage.

The ability to know is not what is denied, at least not conventionally. It is rather the illusion that the ability to know belongs to a knower, there is no such knower, no such subjective referent entity to which knowing belongs. Seeing is just [the experience of] colors and hearing is just [the experience of] sound without seer or hearer.

You should read this article on anatta from the perspective of Pali canon because this is very very clear: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/ ... means.html

Seer and seeing dependent on seen means no [self-existing] seer or seeing. Seen dependent on faculty and cognition is nothing seen.
“Soh Wei Yu

25m ·

Shared with Your friends

This explanation by Geoff on anatta is very good. Seer and seeing dependent on seen means no [self-existing] seer or seeing. Seen dependent on faculty and cognition is nothing seen. Therefore, in the seen just the seen is no seer, no seeing, and nothing seen. The vivid radiance of appearances are not denied yet resembles a rainbow or a mirage, illusory and unestablished.



p.s. The source PDF by Geoff [although this particular text is focused on the Pali canon, Geoff is both a scholar and practitioner in both Vajrayana/Mahamudra and Theravada traditions] is so good that John Tan has commented its good quality multiple times and has asked me to pin it to the top of the 'Insightful Materials' of the AtR blog. Hope there are more similar summaries for Mahayana and Vajrayana paths as well. Measureless Mind PDF: https://app.box.com/s/nxby5606lbaei9oudiz6xsyrdasacqph



The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā)



Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,

Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.

One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā



The contemplation of selflessness is given in AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:



Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness.



In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness. When hearing, there is the coming together of sound, the ear, and auditory consciousness. When touching, there is the coming together of tactual sensation, the body, and tactile consciousness. When thinking, there is the thought, the mind, and mental consciousness. These processes arise simply through ‘contact.’ When a sense faculty and a sensory object make contact, the corresponding sensory consciousness arises. This entire process occurs through specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). There is no independent, fully autonomous agent or self controlling any of this.



An independent, autonomous self would, by definition, be:



1. permanent

2. satisfactory

3. not prone to dis-ease

4. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)



Thus, what is being negated is a permanent, satisfactory self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta (abridged) states:



Monks, form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness are not-self. Were form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness self, then this form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness would not lead to dis-ease.



This criterion of dis-ease is the context for the following statement that:



None can have it of form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness: ‘Let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be thus, let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be not thus.’



By engaging in sustained, dedicated contemplation we find only impermanent processes, conditionally arisen, and not fully self-determining. First we clearly see that all conditioned phenomena of body and mind are impermanent. Next we come to see that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory in that it can provide no lasting happiness. Then we realize that all impermanent, unsatisfactory phenomena of body and mind are not-self — they can’t be the basis for a self, which by definition would be permanent and (one would hope) satisfactory. This relationship between the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness, and the recognition of selflessness is illustrated in the following diagram.



With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:



"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."



When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.



This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.



The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.



It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?



The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:



Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.



He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.



He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.



He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.



Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”



The purpose of correctly engaging in the contemplation of selflessness is stated in AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?



Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.



‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.



Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:



Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,

Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.

One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.



When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:



‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?



Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?



So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’



Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).



The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā):



Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of selflessness will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):



Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.



It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.”
Labels: Anatta, Buddha, Dependent Designation, Dependent Origination, Geoff, Theravada |
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 3:41 pm
auto wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:48 pm the eternalists self or non-buddhist assertion of self, i believe are the ordinary people who have the sakkaya ditthi - that the conditioned things are the self.
By reifying an unconditioned Self, you are no different from all the Hindus and Advaitins. Advaitins posit the conditional self is illusory, only the unconditioned deathless Self (capital S)is real
I become aware of my self certainly after being hopeless, in shame etc. Meditating longer time, there can appear memories of some past incidents or potential encounters.. what then incite shame in me and i come aware of myself. I wouldn't call that reifying.

That what you call sense of self on your example,
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/05/a-peak-experience-of-no-mind-vs.html wrote:...It is easy induce a state of no-mind experience -- for example there are many stories about Zen masters giving a completely unexpected blow, a shout, a pinch on your nose out of a sudden, and in that moment of pain and shock, all sense of self and indeed all concepts are completely forgotten and only the vivid pain remains.
i don't know why you call that sense of self. I don't, there is definition difference.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:12 pm It is not so much removing agency as a hindrance but realizing there never was agent or agency, only actions without agent/watcher/doer/experiencer. Much like a rope mistaken to be a snake, the snake is simply a hallucination or misinterpretation of the rope that never was.
the that there is no agency, doer has become the biggest non-sense ever. Having sense of self, agency, these for me are the keys to making progress in meditation, its is total opposite what you tell.
xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:12 pm There never was a knower or knowing besides known. Known is self-knowing. No seer or seeing besides colors and so on. That is what is always already the case, consciousness is simply cognizance happening wherever what's seen, heard, smelled, etc, manifest due to conditions.
I specifically focus on the knower. That what is known is not gazed upon, the reason is that i wait for the mental images, signs, objects to arise, which in turn will produce a feeling in body or is producing and i help with my mind to get it arise..
xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:12 pm There is no agent, no agency. If a self is held to exist, that causes bondage and not liberation. Clinging to self and subject object duality is the cause of bondage. Ignorance of the empty yet luminous nature of mind and appearance is the cause of bondage.
knower doesn't exist the way objects exists.., you are worse than annihilationist, you don't even acknowledge the seer.
xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:12 pm The ability to know is not what is denied, at least not conventionally. It is rather the illusion that the ability to know belongs to a knower, there is no such knower, no such subjective referent entity to which knowing belongs. Seeing is just [the experience of] colors and hearing is just [the experience of] sound without seer or hearer.
if the knowing of knower arises its something you know mentally and its not the only thing, there are qualities to it and can take a closer look on it and find another thing. Besides that this sensation lights up the mental space and its felt in the heart.

You are teaching materialism, ignorance in short, how to become ignorant 101, be only aware of the senses, there are only the senses..
xabir wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:12 pm Geoff said,
In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness.
That if people hear a sound and its frightening, so they should think it is just a sound. Nothing to do with debunking self.
Post Reply