Frank Yang is DONE!

[Pondera]

Sense organs belong to me as like anything is given to me belongs to me.

This is [the expression of] a concept which is like every other concept.

Cool, carry on, but without me. Bye

I’m glad to see that you are beginning to notice the useless nature of talking about mere concepts with Guru SteRo.

For example, sense organs are not “concepts”. So what in God’s good name is SteRo avoiding by refusing to admit that things like sense organs are a REALITY???!!!!

I am guessing that he is avoiding REALITY itself!

[SteRo]

This is [the expression of] a concept which is like every other concept.

Cool, carry on, but without me. Bye

I’m glad to see that you are beginning to notice the useless nature of talking about mere concepts with Guru SteRo.

It seems that auto is simply frustrated because he might have expected our conversation to get at something he already had in mind from the beginning. And if you are honest you have to admit that the same is the case with you.
It's frustrating for naive realists who grasp their own experience as independent reality to be confronted with someone who reduces everything to mere concepts.
But hey, I am not making up an alternative reality I am simply expressing experience based on "decisive insight".

For example, sense organs are not “concepts”. So what in God’s good name is SteRo avoiding by refusing to admit that things like sense organs are a REALITY???!!!!

I am guessing that he is avoiding REALITY itself!

Of course "sense organs" are mere concepts. See before there arises the thought "sense organs" there is nothing but an '[elementary] formation' which becomes the object of intention and then evolves into the cognition "sense organs".
This isn't claimed to be reality because everything expressed here dependently originates from '[elemantary] formations' and '[elementary] formation' itself is just a concepts.
It's all emptiness or the All is emptiness. But emptiness makes a good basis for all our fabrications.
Just accept this as an expression of SteRo's experience and put it aside

At other times I will be talking about theravada doctrine again as if it would represent reality. Just be patient ...

[PeterC86]

Of course "sense organs" are mere concepts. See before there arises the thought "sense organs" there is nothing but an '[elementary] formation' which becomes the object of intention and then evolves into the cognition "sense organs".
This isn't claimed to be reality because everything expressed here dependently originates from '[elemantary] formations' and '[elementary] formation' itself is just a concepts.
It's all emptiness or the All is emptiness. But emptiness makes a good basis for all our fabrications.
Just accept this as an expression of SteRo's experience and put it aside

At other times I will be talking about theravada doctrine again as if it would represent reality. Just be patient ...

Wise but not attained perfect wisdom yet it seems, because even emptiness is empty.

[SteRo]

Wise but not attained perfect wisdom yet it seems, because even emptiness is empty.

So you think there is something to be attained? If yes then how does this conform with even emptiness being empty?

And if "even emptiness is empty" on what grounds are you asserting this? Is your assertion substantial or empty? If it is empty what makes the difference between asserting that and not asserting that?

[PeterC86]

Wise but not attained perfect wisdom yet it seems, because even emptiness is empty.

So you think there is something to be attained? If yes then how does this conform with even emptiness being empty?

The insight that even emptiness is empty.

And if "even emptiness is empty" on what grounds are you asserting this? Is your assertion substantial or empty? If it is empty what makes the difference between asserting that and not asserting that?

In Theravada this emptiness is refered to as the formless. Nibbana is attained after passing through the formless realms, which means that you gain concentration by letting go of the identification with the formless;

starting with infinite space; realization there is emptiness

then infinite consciousness; this emptiness is filled with us being conscious of that emptiness,

then nothingness; you cannot really separate the emptiness you (non)perceive, from your sense experience. Through this insight we attain nothingness; because form is empty, and therefore really nothing, and the formless (emptiness) is also empty, and therefore also really nothing. We dissolve into nothingness. This nothingness only refers to our mind not being able to identify anything; we still experience.

then neither perception nor non-perception; Nibbana is attained at neither asserting nor not-asserting. The same as with nothingness, we still experience; the neither perception nor non-perception only refers to our mind not being able to identify a perception.

In order to realize this, you need to let go of the identification with emptiness; you cling to it. Yes it is unconditioned; no reference anymore.

[SteRo]

Wise but not attained perfect wisdom yet it seems, because even emptiness is empty.

So you think there is something to be attained? If yes then how does this conform with even emptiness being empty?

The insight that even emptiness is empty.

And if "even emptiness is empty" on what grounds are you asserting this? Is your assertion substantial or empty? If it is empty what makes the difference between asserting that and not asserting that?

In Theravada this emptiness is refered to as the formless. Nibbana is attained after passing through the formless realms, which means that you gain concentration by letting go of the identification with the formless;

starting with infinite space; realization there is emptiness

then infinite consciousness; this emptiness is filled with us being conscious of that emptiness,

then nothingness; you cannot really separate the emptiness you (non)perceive, from your sense experience. Through this insight we attain nothingness; because form is empty, and therefore really nothing, and the formless (emptiness) is also empty, and therefore also really nothing. We dissolve into nothingness. This nothingness only refers to our mind not being able to identify anything; we still experience.

then neither perception nor non-perception; Nibbana is attained at neither asserting nor not-asserting. The same as with nothingness, we still experience; the neither perception nor non-perception only refers to our mind not being able to identify a perception.

In order to realize this, you need to let go of the identification with emptiness; you cling to it. Yes it is unconditioned; no reference anymore.

I see that you've already settled on your elaborations that you have derived from theravada doctrine. That's the basis for your urge to teach. I can totally accept that as expression of your personal experience but what puzzles me is your talk of "we". On the other hand there wouldn't be any teacher if all teachers realized that they actually are only expressing their own personal experience. So the illusion of own personal experience being objective reality seems to be necessary for the motivation to teach. So be it. I don't mind teachers as long as I am not forced to follow any of them.

[PeterC86]

I see that you've already settled on your elaborations that you have derived from theravada doctrine. That's the basis for your urge to teach. I can totally accept that as expression of your personal experience but what puzzles me is your talk of "we". On the other hand there wouldn't be any teacher if all teachers realized that they actually are only expressing their own personal experience. So the illusion of own personal experience being objective reality seems to be necessary for the motivation to teach. So be it. I don't mind teachers as long as I am not forced to follow any of them.

Yes that is why my 'teaching' only explains dependent origination, and therefore nothing is taught, and there is nothing to follow. You either identify or you don't. All the best to you, emptiness.

[SteRo]

... my 'teaching' only explains dependent origination,

another phantasmagoria

[PeterC86]

... my 'teaching' only explains dependent origination,

another phantasmagoria

Maybe you can explain to me what you are doing here on this forum? I am interested. You postulate your emptiness, which is the same as new-age, Brahmanism, and what not; all is consciousness/infinity/emptiness. I suspect that everyone on this forum clearly sees what you believe, as can be seen in the responses to you, because Theravada is clear about that this is not Nibbana, as it is not complete absorption. I know you do not care about the concept of Nibbana in your bubble, but for the sake of conversation. What do you get out of this? Would you not be more happier with people who believe the same as you?

[auto]

This is [the expression of] a concept which is like every other concept.

Cool, carry on, but without me. Bye

I’m glad to see that you are beginning to notice the useless nature of talking about mere concepts with Guru SteRo.

For example, sense organs are not “concepts”. So what in God’s good name is SteRo avoiding by refusing to admit that things like sense organs are a REALITY???!!!!

I am guessing that he is avoiding REALITY itself!

I loosely paraphrase Frank Yang: Speaking from direct experience, you can describe anything and if another person reads it she can verify it with direct experience.
-
Stero seem ignoring there is knowledge what is gotten through firsthand experience. More so he doesn't believe in cultivation, he thinks it is fabrication(in its empty, useless sense).

PTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

Abhijānāti，[abhi + jñā，cp. jānāti & abhiññā] to know by experience，to know fully or thoroughly，to recognise，know of （c. Acc.），to be conscious or aware of D.I，143； S.II，58，105，219，278； III，59，91； IV，50，324，399； V，52，176，282，299； Sn.1117 （diṭṭhiṁ Gotamassa na a.）； J.IV，142； Pv.II，710 = II.103 （n’ābhijānāmi bhuttaṁ vā pītaṁ）； Sdhp.550； etc. -- Pot. abhijāneyya Nd2 78a，& abhijaññā Sn.917，1059 （= jāneyyāsi SnA 592）； aor. abhaññāsi Sn.p. 16. -- ppr. abhijānaṁ S.IV，19，89； Sn.788 （= °jānanto C.），1114 （= °jānanto Nd2 78b） abhijānitva DhA.IV，233； abhiññāya S.IV，16； V，392； Sn.534 （sabbadhammaṁ），743 （jātikkhayaṁ），1115，1148； It.91 （dhammaṁ）； Dh.166 （atta-d-atthaṁ）； freq. in phrase sayaṁ abhiññāya from personal knowledge or self-experience It.97 （v.l. abhiññā）； Dh.353； and abhiññā [short form，like ādā for ādāya，cp. upādā] in phrase sayaṁ abhiññā D.I，31 （+ sacchikatvā）； S.II，217； It.97 （v.l. for °abhiññāya），in abhiññā-vosita perfected by highest knowledge S.I，167 = 175 = Dh.423 （“master of supernormal lore” Mrs Rh. D. in kindred S. p. 208； cp. also DhA.IV，233）； It.47 = 61 = 81，and perhaps also in phrase sabbaṁ abhiññapariññeyya S.IV，29. -- grd. abhiññeyya S.IV，29； Sn.558 （°ṁ abhiññātaṁ known is the knowable）； Nd2 s.v.； DhA.IV，233. -- pp. abhiññāta （q. v.）. （Page 63）

[SteRo]

Stero seem ignoring there is knowledge what is gotten through firsthand experience. More so he doesn't believe in cultivation, he thinks it is fabrication(in its empty, useless sense).

What cannot be affirmed in the first place cannot be ignored because it is simply not apprehended. That is why there also can't be belief in anything, cultivation or any other purposeful practice. What is cultivation? Cultivation is intentionally trying to make something a habit, it's mere artificiality collapsing as soon as cultivation has stopped for some time.

[auto]

Stero seem ignoring there is knowledge what is gotten through firsthand experience. More so he doesn't believe in cultivation, he thinks it is fabrication(in its empty, useless sense).

What cannot be affirmed in the first place cannot be ignored because it is simply not apprehended. That is why there also can't be belief in anything, cultivation or any other purposeful practice. What is cultivation? Cultivation is intentionally trying to make something a habit, it's mere artificiality collapsing as soon as cultivation has stopped for some time.

There are plenty of hints about cultivation and why it is done. Translations and interpretations can vary.
itivuttaka: the buddha’s sayings

“Bhikkhus, live contemplating the foulness of the body.
Let mindfulness of breathing be inwardly well established before you.
Live contemplating the impermanence of all formations.

“For those who live contemplating foulness in the body, the tendency to lust with regard to the element of beauty is abandoned.
When mindfulness of breathing is inwardly well established before one, the tendencies of extraneous thoughts to produce vexation of mind remain no more.
For those who live contemplating the impermanence of all formations, ignorance is abandoned and knowledge arises.”

i assume the formations are the fabricated khandhas,

And why do you call them choices? Choices produce conditioned phenomena; that’s why they’re called ‘choices’. And what are the conditioned phenomena that they produce? Form is a conditioned phenomenon; choices are what make it into form. Feeling is a conditioned phenomenon; choices are what make it into feeling. Perception is a conditioned phenomenon; choices are what make it into perception. Choices are conditioned phenomena; choices are what make them into choices. Consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon; choices are what make it into consciousness. Choices produce conditioned phenomena; that’s why they’re called ‘choices’.

There is vinnana what is fabricated and the true one is 5th(vinnana) khandha. And per Mahayana (if to read the summary of khandhas in Surangama sutra) the fabricated vinnana is samsaric mind.

‘ânanda, in the cultivation of samàdhi, when the fourth aggregate
of discrimination (saüskàra) comes to an end, the subtle
disturbance in the state of clearness, (that is the functioning of
samsaric mind), which is the mechanism of birth and death,
suddenly explodes and exposes an outlook completely different
from that of the profound karma of pudgala (i.e. all beings
subject to transmigration).

Notice why there is contemplation of impermanence of all formations, its because it is a state of clearness, there is no movement albeit there actually is hence the contemplation requirement on the 'basic clinging',

This contemplation
of the essence of basic clinging (i.e. the fifth aggregate
of consciousness) releases the practiser from all attraction (by
old habits and new karma) and immunizes him from further
transmigration in saüsàra for he has realized the identity of
mind with its self-created externals everywhere.

When this disturbance is discovered then it explodes and reveal completely different outlook.
--
Well if you stop cultivation it means returning back to the lesser life. In that sense when you not cultivate and think it is artificial, you haven't gone above lesser life.

[SteRo]

Stero seem ignoring there is knowledge what is gotten through firsthand experience. More so he doesn't believe in cultivation, he thinks it is fabrication(in its empty, useless sense).

What cannot be affirmed in the first place cannot be ignored because it is simply not apprehended. That is why there also can't be belief in anything, cultivation or any other purposeful practice. What is cultivation? Cultivation is intentionally trying to make something a habit, it's mere artificiality collapsing as soon as cultivation has stopped for some time.

There are plenty of hints about cultivation and why it is done. Translations and interpretations can vary.
itivuttaka: the buddha’s sayings
...
When this disturbance is discovered then it explodes and reveal completely different outlook.
--

You have not spared me the sutta and sutra quotes. I can bear.

Well if you stop cultivation it means returning back to the lesser life. In that sense when you not cultivate and think it is artificial, you haven't gone above lesser life.

My life isn't even lesser life but my life equals death. Why? Because it's not mine. No burden at all. Peace.

[auto]

You have not spared me the sutta and sutra quotes. I can bear.

My life isn't even lesser life but my life equals death. Why? Because it's not mine. No burden at all. Peace.

ok cool.

[SteRo]

ok cool.

cool, yeah