Which tradition to follow?

• Fugazzi

  26 Jan 12, 22:40

  ''Your notion that there cannot be wrong view is the true ego deception that will prevent your progress.'' Ceratinly i do agree there will be no progress. How to progress when one plants a seed and every few months or so digs up to find if the seed is ... If i purport to meditate and everynow and then check what Buddha could have uttered or some sutra may have expounded , i m deluding myself that I am meditating. However, when I meditate, explore and dont conclude, dont fall back on what someone said or uttered - i m journeying and yet not journeying (it is a paradoxical phenomenon, it cannot be boxed in) In other words, the meditation that is embarked upon is premised on this: I am fearful and do not know (the rationalizing mind never admits to this lacunae), but instead of facing up to that reality within me, i cover up and pretend. Many meditate but tie a rope to ... why, just in case, if something feels not ''rite'' they can revert back and .... why? fear of the self dying! knwoing what is not awakening, one has the chance of ... knowing what is not enlightement, one has the chance of .... as to whether it is going to happen or not happen is not important for the seeking heart, the mind cannot and will never accept cos mind sustains itself on certainty. . There is no journey, no need for a journey, just this knowing as to whether one is parking one's mind somewhere or nowhere! I will want progress if I am looking to gain something, looking to be validated. Beware the deception of the human mind. Nature(aka existential happening) is allergic to ideologies
• Fugazzi

  26 Jan 12, 22:41

  ''Your notion that there cannot be wrong view is the true ego deception that will prevent your progress.'' Ceratinly i do agree there will be no progress. How to progress when one plants a seed and every few months or so digs up to find if the seed is ... If i purport to meditate and everynow and then check what Buddha could have uttered or some sutra may have expounded , i m deluding myself that I am meditating. However, when I meditate, explore and dont conclude, dont fall back on what someone said or uttered - i m journeying and yet not journeying (it is a paradoxical phenomenon, it cannot be boxed in) In other words, the meditation that is embarked upon is premised on this: I am fearful and do not know (the rationalizing mind never admits to this lacunae), but instead of facing up to that reality within me, i cover up and pretend. Many meditate but tie a rope to ... why, just in case, if something feels not ''rite'' they can revert back and .... why? fear of the self dying! knwoing what is not awakening, one has the chance of ... knowing what is not enlightement, one has the chance of .... as to whether it is going to happen or not happen is not important for the seeking heart, the mind cannot and will never accept cos mind sustains itself on certainty. . There is no journey, no need for a journey, just this knowing as to whether one is parking one's mind somewhere or nowhere! I will want progress if I am looking to gain something, looking to be validated. Beware the deception of the human mind. Nature(aka existential happening) is allergic to ideologies
• Dawnfirstlight

  26 Jan 12, 22:49

  Continue from page 1

  IV. Speculations about the Future (Aparantakappika)

  74. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future, who hold settled views about the future, and who on forty-four grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

  1. Doctrines of Percipient Immortality (SaññÄ«vÄ�da): Views 19–34

  75. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality[10] and who on sixteen grounds proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  76. "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, percipient, and:

  A.	1. material 2. immaterial 3. both material and immaterial 4. neither material nor immaterial
  B.	1. finite 2. infinite 3. both finite and infinite 4. neither finite nor infinite
  C.	1. of uniform perception 2. of diversified perception 3. of limited perception 4. of boundless perception
  D.	1. exclusively happy 2. exclusively miserable 3. both happy and miserable 4. neither happy nor miserable.'

  77. "It is on these sixteen grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality, all of them do so on these sixteen grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understand... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  2. Doctrines of Non-percipient Immortality (AsaññÄ«vÄ�da): Views 35–42

  78. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of non-percipient immortality, and who on eight grounds proclaim the self to survive non-percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  79. "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, non-percipient, and:

  A.	1. material 2. immaterial 3. both material and immaterial 4. neither material nor immaterial
  B.	1. finite 2. infinite 3. both finite and infinite 4. neither finite nor infinite.'

  80. "It is on these eight grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of non-percipient immortality proclaim the self to survive non-percipient after death. Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of non -percipient immortality, all of them do so on these eight grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  3. Doctrines of Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Immortality (N'evasaññÄ«-nÄ�saññÄ«vÄ�da): Views 43–50

  81. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality and who on eight grounds proclaim the self to survive neither percipient nor non-percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  82. "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, neither percipient nor non-percipient, and:

  A.	1. material 2. immaterial 3. both material and immaterial 4. neither material nor immaterial
  B.	1. finite 2. infinite 3. both finite and infinite 4. neither finite nor infinite.'

  83. "It is on these eight grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality proclaim the self to survive neither percipient nor non-percipient after death. Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality, all of them do so on these eight grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  4. Annihilationism (UcchedavÄ�da): Views 51–57

  84. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  85. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  86. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine, having material form, pertaining to the sense sphere, feeding on edible nutriment. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  87. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine, having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs, not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  88. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by contemplating) "Space is infinite." That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  89. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of infinite consciousness, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of infinite space (by contemplating): "Consciousness is infinite." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  90. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of nothingness, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness (by contemplating): "There is nothing." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  91. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of neither perception nor non-perception, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of nothingness (by contemplating): "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

  92. "It is on these seven grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. Whatever recluses or brahmins proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being, all of them do so on these seven grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  5. Doctrines of NibbÄ�na Here and Now (Diá¹­á¹­hadhammanibbÄ�navÄ�da): Views 58–62

  93. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of Nibb�na here and now and who, on five grounds, proclaim Nibb�na here and now for an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  94. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine or view: 'When this self, good sir, furnished and supplied with the five strands of sense pleasures, revels in them — at this point the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now.' In this way some proclaim supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being.

  95. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now. What is the reason? Because, good sir, sense pleasures are impermanent, suffering, subject to change, and through their change and transformation there arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. But when the self, quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, enters and abides in the first jhÄ�na, which is accompanied by initial and sustained thought and contains the rapture and happiness born of seclusion — at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now.' In this way others proclaim supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being.

  96. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now. What is the reason? Because that jhÄ�na contains initial and sustained thought; therefore it is declared to be gross. But when, with the subsiding of initial and sustained thought, the self enters and abides in the second jhÄ�na, which is accompanied by internal confidence and unification of mind, is free from initial and sustained thought, and contains the rapture and happiness born of concentration — at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now.' In this way others proclaim supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being.

  97. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now. What is the reason? It is declared to be gross because of the mental exhilaration connected with rapture that exists there. But when, with the fading away of rapture, one abides in equanimity, mindful and clearly comprehending, and still experiencing happiness with the body, enters and abides in the third jhÄ�na, so that the ariyans announce: "He abides happily, in equanimity and mind­fulness" — at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now.' In this way some proclaim supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being.

  98. "To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now. What is the reason? It is declared to be gross because a mental concern, 'Happiness,' exists there. But when, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the disappearance of previous joy and grief, one enters and abides in the fourth jhÄ�na, which is without pleasure and pain and contains purification of mindfulness through equanimity — at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme NibbÄ�na here and now.' In this way some proclaim supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  99. "It is on these five grounds, bhikkhus, that these recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of Nibb�na here and now proclaim supreme Nibb�na here and now for an existent being. Whatever recluses or brahmins proclaim supreme Nibb�na here and now for an existent being, all of them do so on these five grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  100. "It is on these forty-four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future and hold settled views about the future assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future. Whatever recluses or brahmins, bhikkhus, are speculators about the future, hold settled views about the future, and assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future, all of them do so on these forty-four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  101. "It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, and speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future.

  102. "Whatever recluses or brahmins, bhikkhus, are speculators about the past or speculators about the future or speculators about the past and the future together, hold settled views about the past and the future, and assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future, all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  103. "This, bhikkhus, the Tath�gata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tath�gata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.

  104. "These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tath�gata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak.

  V. The Round of Conditions and Emancipation from the Round

  1. Agitation and Vacillation (Paritassitavipphandita)

  105. Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving.

  106. "When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving.

  107. "When those recluses and brahmins who are extensionists proclaim on four grounds the world to be finite or infinite —

  108. "When those recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators on four grounds resort to evasive statements and endless equivocation when questioned on this or that point —

  109. "When those recluses and brahmins who are fortuitous originationists proclaim on two grounds the self and the world to originate fortuitously —

  110. "When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past and hold settled views about the past assert on eighteen grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past —

  111. "When those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality proclaim on sixteen grounds the self to survive percipient after death —

  112. "When those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of non-percipient immortality proclaim on eight grounds the self to survive non-percipient after death —

  113. "When those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality proclaim on eight grounds the self to survive neither percipient nor non-percipient after death —

  114. "When those recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim on seven grounds the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being —

  115. "When those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of NibbÄ�na here and now proclaim on five grounds supreme NibbÄ�na here and now for an existent being —

  116. "When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future and hold settled views about the future assert on forty-four grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the future —

  117. "When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving.

  2. Conditioned by Contact (Phassapaccayav�ra)

  118 (131). "Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.[11]

  119 (132). "When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.

  120–129 (133–142). "When those recluses and brahmins who are extensionists proclaim their views; when those who are fortuitous originationists proclaim their views; when those who are speculators about the past and hold settled views about the past assert on eighteen grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past; when those who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality, non-percipient immortality, or neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality proclaim their views; when those who are annihilationists proclaim their views; when those who maintain a doctrine of NibbÄ�na here and now proclaim their views; when those who are speculators about the future and hold settled views about the future assert on forty-four grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.

  130 (143). "When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.

• An Eternal Now

  27 Jan 12, 06:52

  @fugazzi: whatever you said is ok only if meditation consist just of letting go of thoughts. This is not the case in Buddhism. Our meditation is not just shamatha. In order to gain deep insight into the nature of mind, we must first have right view, then we must contemplate according to what the Buddha taught. In other words we have to notice and investigate according to the three dharma seals: impermanence, suffering and no-self. We have to investigate the empty nature of mind. And there are contemplative methods that give rise to such insights. Meditation is not just sitting quietly and doing nothing. There is a contemplative factor involved which sets apart insight meditation from tranquility meditation. And to be successful, you should have right view.
• An Eternal Now

  27 Jan 12, 07:01

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch2 Chapter II: Right View (Samma Ditthi)    The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps, comparable to the intertwining strands of a single cable that requires the contributions of all the strands for maximum strength. With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Considered from the standpoint of practical training, the eight path factors divide into three groups: (i) the moral discipline group (silakkhandha), made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; (ii) the concentration group (samadhikkhandha), made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration; and (iii) the wisdom group (paññakkhandha), made up of right view and right intention. These three groups represent three stages of training: the training in the higher moral discipline, the training in the higher consciousness, and the training in the higher wisdom.[4] The order of the three trainings is determined by the overall aim and direction of the path. Since the final goal to which the path leads, liberation from suffering, depends ultimately on uprooting ignorance, the climax of the path must be the training directly opposed to ignorance. This is the training in wisdom, designed to awaken the faculty of penetrative understanding which sees things "as they really are." Wisdom unfolds by degrees, but even the faintest flashes of insight presuppose as their basis a mind that has been concentrated, cleared of disturbance and distraction. Concentration is achieved through the training in the higher consciousness, the second division of the path, which brings the calm and collectedness needed to develop wisdom. But in order for the mind to be unified in concentration, a check must be placed on the unwholesome dispositions which ordinarily dominate its workings, since these dispositions disperse the beam of attention and scatter it among a multitude of concerns. The unwholesome dispositions continue to rule as long as they are permitted to gain expression through the channels of body and speech as bodily and verbal deeds. Therefore, at the very outset of training, it is necessary to restrain the faculties of action, to prevent them from becoming tools of the defilements. This task is accomplished by the first division of the path, the training in moral discipline. Thus the path evolves through its three stages, with moral discipline as the foundation for concentration, concentration the foundation for wisdom, and wisdom the direct instrument for reaching liberation. Perplexity sometimes arises over an apparent inconsistency in the arrangement of the path factors and the threefold training. Wisdom — which includes right view and right intention — is the last stage in the threefold training, yet its factors are placed at the beginning of the path rather than at its end, as might be expected according to the canon of strict consistency. The sequence of the path factors, however, is not the result of a careless slip, but is determined by an important logistical consideration, namely, that right view and right intention of a preliminary type are called for at the outset as the spur for entering the threefold training. Right view provides the perspective for practice, right intention the sense of direction. But the two do not expire in this preparatory role. For when the mind has been refined by the training in moral discipline and concentration, it arrives at a superior right view and right intention, which now form the proper training in the higher wisdom. Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one's destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view. The importance of right view can be gauged from the fact that our perspectives on the crucial issues of reality and value have a bearing that goes beyond mere theoretical convictions. They govern our attitudes, our actions, our whole orientation to existence. Our views might not be clearly formulated in our mind; we might have only a hazy conceptual grasp of our beliefs. But whether formulated or not, expressed or maintained in silence, these views have a far-reaching influence. They structure our perceptions, order our values, crystallize into the ideational framework through which we interpret to ourselves the meaning of our being in the world. These views then condition action. They lie behind our choices and goals, and our efforts to turn these goals from ideals into actuality. The actions themselves might determine consequences, but the actions along with their consequences hinge on the views from which they spring. Since views imply an "ontological commitment," a decision on the question of what is real and true, it follows that views divide into two classes, right views and wrong views. The former correspond to what is real, the latter deviate from the real and confirm the false in its place. These two different kinds of views, the Buddha teaches, lead to radically disparate lines of action, and thence to opposite results. If we hold a wrong view, even if that view is vague, it will lead us towards courses of action that eventuate in suffering. On the other hand, if we adopt a right view, that view will steer us towards right action, and thereby towards freedom from suffering. Though our conceptual orientation towards the world might seem innocuous and inconsequential, when looked at closely it reveals itself to be the decisive determinant of our whole course of future development. The Buddha himself says that he sees no single factor so responsible for the arising of unwholesome states of mind as wrong view, and no factor so helpful for the arising of wholesome states of mind as right view. Again, he says that there is no single factor so responsible for the suffering of living beings as wrong view, and no factor so potent in promoting the good of living beings as right view (AN 1:16.2). In its fullest measure right view involves a correct understanding of the entire Dhamma or teaching of the Buddha, and thus its scope is equal to the range of the Dhamma itself. But for practical purposes two kinds of right view stand out as primary. One is mundane right view, right view which operates within the confines of the world. The other is supramundane right view, the superior right view which leads to liberation from the world. The first is concerned with the laws governing material and spiritual progress within the round of becoming, with the principles that lead to higher and lower states of existence, to mundane happiness and suffering. The second is concerned with the principles essential to liberation. It does not aim merely at spiritual progress from life to life, but at emancipation from the cycle of recurring lives and deaths. Mundane Right View Mundane right view involves a correct grasp of the law of kamma, the moral efficacy of action. Its literal name is "right view of the ownership of action" (kammassakata sammaditthi), and it finds its standard formulation in the statement: "Beings are the owners of their actions, the heirs of their actions; they spring from their actions, are bound to their actions, and are supported by their actions. Whatever deeds they do, good or bad, of those they shall be heirs."[5] More specific formulations have also come down in the texts. One stock passage, for example, affirms that virtuous actions such as giving and offering alms have moral significance, that good and bad deeds produce corresponding fruits, that one has a duty to serve mother and father, that there is rebirth and a world beyond the visible one, and that religious teachers of high attainment can be found who expound the truth about the world on the basis of their own superior realization.[6] To understand the implications of this form of right view we first have to examine the meaning of its key term, kamma. The word kamma means action. For Buddhism the relevant kind of action is volitional action, deeds expressive of morally determinate volition, since it is volition that gives the action ethical significance. Thus the Buddha expressly identifies action with volition. In a discourse on the analysis of kamma he says: "Monks, it is volition that I call action (kamma). Having willed, one performs an action through body, speech, or mind."[7] The identification of kamma with volition makes kamma essentially a mental event, a factor originating in the mind which seeks to actualize the mind's drives, dispositions, and purposes. Volition comes into being through any of three channels — body, speech, or mind — called the three doors of action (kammadvara). A volition expressed through the body is a bodily action; a volition expressed through speech is a verbal action; and a volition that issues in thoughts, plans, ideas, and other mental states without gaining outer expression is a mental action. Thus the one factor of volition differentiates into three types of kamma according to the channel through which it becomes manifest. Right view requires more than a simple knowledge of the general meaning of kamma. It is also necessary to understand: (i) the ethical distinction of kamma into the unwholesome and the wholesome; (ii) the principal cases of each type; and (iii) the roots from which these actions spring. As expressed in a sutta: "When a noble disciple understands what is kammically unwholesome, and the root of unwholesome kamma, what is kammically wholesome, and the root of wholesome kamma, then he has right view."[8] (i) Taking these points in order, we find that kamma is first distinguished as unwholesome (akusala) and wholesome (kusala). Unwholesome kamma is action that is morally blameworthy, detrimental to spiritual development, and conducive to suffering for oneself and others. Wholesome kamma, on the other hand, is action that is morally commendable, helpful to spiritual growth, and productive of benefits for oneself and others. (ii) Innumerable instances of unwholesome and wholesome kamma can be cited, but the Buddha selects ten of each as primary. These he calls the ten courses of unwholesome and wholesome action. Among the ten in the two sets, three are bodily, four are verbal, and three are mental. The ten courses of unwholesome kamma may be listed as follows, divided by way of their doors of expression: Destroying life Taking what is not given Wrong conduct in regard to sense pleasures Verbal action: False speech Slanderous speech Harsh speech (vacikamma) Idle chatter Covetousness Ill will Wrong view The ten courses of wholesome kamma are the opposites of these: abstaining from the first seven courses of unwholesome kamma, being free from covetousness and ill will, and holding right view. Though the seven cases of abstinence are exercised entirely by the mind and do not necessarily entail overt action, they are still designated wholesome bodily and verbal action because they center on the control of the faculties of body and speech. (iii) Actions are distinguished as wholesome and unwholesome on the basis of their underlying motives, called "roots" (mula), which impart their moral quality to the volitions concomitant with themselves. Thus kamma is wholesome or unwholesome according to whether its roots are wholesome or unwholesome. The roots are threefold for each set. The unwholesome roots are the three defilements we already mentioned — greed, aversion, and delusion. Any action originating from these is an unwholesome kamma. The three wholesome roots are their opposites, expressed negatively in the old Indian fashion as non-greed (alobha), non-aversion (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). Though these are negatively designated, they signify not merely the absence of defilements but the corresponding virtues. Non-greed implies renunciation, detachment, and generosity; non-aversion implies loving-kindness, sympathy, and gentleness; and non-delusion implies wisdom. Any action originating from these roots is a wholesome kamma. The most important feature of kamma is its capacity to produce results corresponding to the ethical quality of the action. An immanent universal law holds sway over volitional actions, bringing it about that these actions issue in retributive consequences, called vipaka, "ripenings," or phala, "fruits." The law connecting actions with their fruits works on the simple principle that unwholesome actions ripen in suffering, wholesome actions in happiness. The ripening need not come right away; it need not come in the present life at all. Kamma can operate across the succession of lifetimes; it can even remain dormant for aeons into the future. But whenever we perform a volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action. The ripening may take place in the present life, in the next life, or in some life subsequent to the next. A kamma may ripen by producing rebirth into the next existence, thus determining the basic form of life; or it may ripen in the course of a lifetime, issuing in our varied experiences of happiness and pain, success and failure, progress and decline. But whenever it ripens and in whatever way, the same principle invariably holds: wholesome actions yield favorable results, unwholesome actions yield unfavorable results. To recognize this principle is to hold right view of the mundane kind. This view at once excludes the multiple forms of wrong view with which it is incompatible. As it affirms that our actions have an influence on our destiny continuing into future lives, it opposes the nihilistic view which regards this life as our only existence and holds that consciousness terminates with death. As it grounds the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, in an objective universal principle, it opposes the ethical subjectivism which asserts that good and evil are only postulations of personal opinion or means to social control. As it affirms that people can choose their actions freely, within limits set by their conditions, it opposes the "hard deterministic" line that our choices are always made subject to necessitation, and hence that free volition is unreal and moral responsibility untenable. Some of the implications of the Buddha's teaching on the right view of kamma and its fruits run counter to popular trends in present-day thought, and it is helpful to make these differences explicit. The teaching on right view makes it known that good and bad, right and wrong, transcend conventional opinions about what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. An entire society may be predicated upon a confusion of correct moral values, and even though everyone within that society may applaud one particular kind of action as right and condemn another kind as wrong, this does not make them validly right and wrong. For the Buddha moral standards are objective and invariable. While the moral character of deeds is doubtlessly conditioned by the circumstances under which they are performed, there are objective criteria of morality against which any action, or any comprehensive moral code, can be evaluated. This objective standard of morality is integral to the Dhamma, the cosmic law of truth and righteousness. Its transpersonal ground of validation is the fact that deeds, as expressions of the volitions that engender them, produce consequences for the agent, and that the correlations between deeds and their consequences are intrinsic to the volitions themselves. There is no divine judge standing above the cosmic process who assigns rewards and punishments. Nevertheless, the deeds themselves, through their inherent moral or immoral nature, generate the appropriate results. For most people, the vast majority, the right view of kamma and its results is held out of confidence, accepted on faith from an eminent spiritual teacher who proclaims the moral efficacy of action. But even when the principle of kamma is not personally seen, it still remains a facet of right view. It is part and parcel of right view because right view is concerned with understanding — with understanding our place in the total scheme of things — and one who accepts the principle that our volitional actions possess a moral potency has, to that extent, grasped an important fact pertaining to the nature of our existence. However, the right view of the kammic efficacy of action need not remain exclusively an article of belief screened behind an impenetrable barrier. It can become a matter of direct seeing. Through the attainment of certain states of deep concentration it is possible to develop a special faculty called the "divine eye" (dibbacakkhu), a super-sensory power of vision that reveals things hidden from the eyes of flesh. When this faculty is developed, it can be directed out upon the world of living beings to investigate the workings of the kammic law. With the special vision it confers one can then see for oneself, with immediate perception, how beings pass away and re-arise according to their kamma, how they meet happiness and suffering through the maturation of their good and evil deeds.[9] Superior Right View The right view of kamma and its fruits provides a rationale for engaging in wholesome actions and attaining high status within the round of rebirths, but by itself it does not lead to liberation. It is possible for someone to accept the law of kamma yet still limit his aims to mundane achievements. One's motive for performing noble deeds might be the accumulation of meritorious kamma leading to prosperity and success here and now, a fortunate rebirth as a human being, or the enjoyment of celestial bliss in the heavenly worlds. There is nothing within the logic of kammic causality to impel the urge to transcend the cycle of kamma and its fruit. The impulse to deliverance from the entire round of becoming depends upon the acquisition of a different and deeper perspective, one which yields insight into the inherent defectiveness of all forms of samsaric existence, even the most exalted. This superior right view leading to liberation is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is this right view that figures as the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path in the proper sense: as the noble right view. Thus the Buddha defines the path factor of right view expressly in terms of the four truths: "What now is right view? It is understanding of suffering (dukkha), understanding of the origin of suffering, understanding of the cessation of suffering, understanding of the way leading to the cessation to suffering."[10] The Eightfold Path starts with a conceptual understanding of the Four Noble Truths apprehended only obscurely through the media of thought and reflection. It reaches its climax in a direct intuition of those same truths, penetrated with a clarity tantamount to enlightenment. Thus it can be said that the right view of the Four Noble Truths forms both the beginning and the culmination of the way to the end of suffering. The first noble truth is the truth of suffering (dukkha), the inherent unsatisfactoriness of existence, revealed in the impermanence, pain, and perpetual incompleteness intrinsic to all forms of life. This is the noble truth of suffering. Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; association with the unpleasant is suffering; separation from the pleasant is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.[11] The last statement makes a comprehensive claim that calls for some attention. The five aggregates of clinging (pañcupadanakkandha) are a classificatory scheme for understanding the nature of our being. What we are, the Buddha teaches, is a set of five aggregates — material form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness — all connected with clinging. We are the five and the five are us. Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world." Thus the Buddha's declaration that the five aggregates are dukkha in effect brings all experience, our entire existence, into the range of dukkha. But here the question arises: Why should the Buddha say that the five aggregates are dukkha? The reason he says that the five aggregates are dukkha is that they are impermanent. They change from moment to moment, arise and fall away, without anything substantial behind them persisting through the change. Since the constituent factors of our being are always changing, utterly devoid of a permanent core, there is nothing we can cling to in them as a basis for security. There is only a constantly disintegrating flux which, when clung to in the desire for permanence, brings a plunge into suffering. The second noble truth points out the cause of dukkha. From the set of defilements which eventuate in suffering, the Buddha singles out craving (tanha) as the dominant and most pervasive cause, "the origin of suffering." This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering. It is this craving which produces repeated existence, is bound up with delight and lust, and seeks pleasure here and there, namely, craving for sense pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence.[12] The third noble truth simply reverses this relationship of origination. If craving is the cause of dukkha, then to be free from dukkha we have to eliminate craving. Thus the Buddha says: This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It is the complete fading away and cessation of this craving, its forsaking and abandonment, liberation and detachment from it.[13] The state of perfect peace that comes when craving is eliminated is Nibbana (nirvana), the unconditioned state experienced while alive with the extinguishing of the flames of greed, aversion, and delusion. The fourth noble truth shows the way to reach the end of dukkha, the way to the realization of Nibbana. That way is the Noble Eightfold Path itself. The right view of the Four Noble Truths develops in two stages. The first is called the right view that accords with the truths (saccanulomika samma ditthi); the second, the right view that penetrates the truths (saccapativedha samma ditthi). To acquire the right view that accords with the truths requires a clear understanding of their meaning and significance in our lives. Such an understanding arises first by learning the truths and studying them. Subsequently it is deepened by reflecting upon them in the light of experience until one gains a strong conviction as to their veracity. But even at this point the truths have not been penetrated, and thus the understanding achieved is still defective, a matter of concept rather than perception. To arrive at the experiential realization of the truths it is necessary to take up the practice of meditation — first to strengthen the capacity for sustained concentration, then to develop insight. Insight arises by contemplating the five aggregates, the factors of existence, in order to discern their real characteristics. At the climax of such contemplation the mental eye turns away from the conditioned phenomena comprised in the aggregates and shifts its focus to the unconditioned state, Nibbana, which becomes accessible through the deepened faculty of insight. With this shift, when the mind's eye sees Nibbana, there takes place a simultaneous penetration of all Four Noble Truths. By seeing Nibbana, the state beyond dukkha, one gains a perspective from which to view the five aggregates and see that they are dukkha simply because they are conditioned, subject to ceaseless change. At the same moment Nibbana is realized, craving stops; the understanding then dawns that craving is the true origin of dukkha. When Nibbana is seen, it is realized to be the state of peace, free from the turmoil of becoming. And because this experience has been reached by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, one knows for oneself that the Noble Eightfold Path is truly the way to the end of dukkha. This right view that penetrates the Four Noble Truths comes at the end of the path, not at the beginning. We have to start with the right view conforming to the truths, acquired through learning and fortified through reflection. This view inspires us to take up the practice, to embark on the threefold training in moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom. When the training matures, the eye of wisdom opens by itself, penetrating the truths and freeing the mind from bondage.
• Fugazzi

  27 Jan 12, 13:45

  Copy and pasting means nothing more than this - i dont know and simply repeat. I simply borrow to prop my views!
• An Eternal Now

  27 Jan 12, 14:39

  On the contrary, I explain first, before pasting an article that talks about it in details. This is vastly different from not being able to explain and thus needing to rely on other sources.
• Fugazzi

  27 Jan 12, 15:31

  U talk about rite views , if there is such a thing as rite views, there must be wrong views. truth knows not rite views or wrong views. does a cat know what is rite or wrong. One can live life or one can practice living life. the latter is a mind game. However, when one adopts this stance of simply allowing it without this preconceived idea of what is rite/what is wrong - one is allowing what is or not is to manifest and these manifestations are something or ... that can only be expereinced and ... one is simply being existential (aka harmonizing what is true) does a cat have to belive in Buddhsim or Christianity? Does a non-believer or one who does not practice be negated from expereince what is or not is! Organized religion(s) of any denomination when it can be observed and shared out of one's fullness (within) is not about one man’s belief against another, but that which serves as catalyst by his being ...(fill in what comes to mind, eg loving, divisive, kind or ...) and an opportunity for others to gravitates towards one inner source of being, ie, all are the same at the centre. One was never born a Hindu nor a Christian nor a .... Is there such a thing as Hindu truth or Christian or Buddhist truth? In fact truth as such does not exist. What exists is relatively true and it is everchanging. One is not born a Chinese or an Indian or a Buddhist or a ... one is *''programmed''/''conditioned'' since one''s birth to be a Chinese or an ... . It is ok to practice any religion but when it (*) is not transcended one is still unfree! Practice is good for theories, for passing exams, for acquiring badges of ... Eternal is beyond the the mind, hope is the expereince of the mind. Eternal is that which is everchanging and an existential herenow phenomenon. One has to be present to the ''present'' and the ''presence'' and ''flow'' with what is. Hope is that of futurizing and how one be herenow aka being eternal and yet hoping? Why must one be successful at ... this is ego tripping Having said that many seem to overlook this - when one dislikes a Buddhism (t) or a Christian (Christianity) or ... one is already blocked n blocking understanding or as espoused here erroneously assumed that it is a discussion, one is already prejudiced and bigoted. Why do I say that - cos one can label a bottle, a packet of cigarettes - it is a finished product, a dead thing. Are human beings dead things? If I were to say that someone is being stupid it is not the same as me labelling another as stupid. In the latter, i have negated the other, I have reduced another to a thing. Understanding has ceased to happen. So this hypocritical stance that one is discussing is humbug. What is real is one is merely defending one''' s beleifs aka what what has acquired as knowledge and made it into a part of oneself. Hence, this stance of blindly accepting and fearful and defensive when one is being questioned or one is thrown into the existential ''chaos'' (cos human mind cannot accept uncertainty, hence the word chaos) of uncertainty. The fear is that the one's sense of self is threathened. It is a psychological ''prop''. Also, one is fearful of finding out that one has been prgrammed, one has been conditioned and what happens if it turns out to be true! What is true (not truth) transcends Buddhism, Christianity or ... . human mind defined and hence the predicament. When one defines, one confines oneself. One has to beware the preacher, the priest or .... that which is inclusive of others or that which integrates one within is freeing. It presupposes that the one who purports to teach, to elucidate is himself/herself free within. That which is selective and excludes some to the benefit of other is a subtle politicizing of religion and it is to dominate and circumsribe. One who is unfree on the inner can go thru the gamut of scriptures, texts or even endlessly prop oneself and defending one's stance. Look closer and examine - it is woefully flawed. At its best one is trying, at its worse it is servitude. It is nigh impossible for one to free another if one is unfree and to ignore, pretend is delusional.
• Weychin

  27 Jan 12, 17:48

  Thanks for all the articless posted! It is with such erudition that we benefit from the wisdom attained from others. It is without prejudice, that we gain from the experience of others, where we exist in a structured society. Not to accept this fact is to run away from our reality. Even in anarchism, we see order in form of patterns, conditions depending. Our perception unfolds according to our ability to see in semblance of pattern of order. Then only can we speak with some conviction or certainty!
• Sushism

  27 Jan 12, 20:41

  My friend Fugazzi ya... La... ya... la..Islam / Sufism is the only complete path to salvation and liberation lah ... Happy now.... Feeling better now... Cool down ..... Breath in ... Breath out .... Heheheheheheheh ....... Hahhahahahaahhaha What a blatant smack of hipocrisy........
• Fugazzi

  27 Jan 12, 20:45

  Originally posted by Sushism:

  My friend Fugazzi

  ya… La… ya… la..Islam / Sufism is the only complete path to salvation and liberation lah …
  Happy now…. Feeling better now… Cool down ….. Breath in … Breath out ….

  Heheheheheheheh ….... Hahhahahahaahhaha

  What a blatant smack of hipocrisy….....

  
  Thanks lah, what i m saying must be ringing alarm bells!
• Fugazzi

  27 Jan 12, 20:53

  @Sushism, I m not a Muslim nor a Sufist nor a Buddhist nor do I belong to anything that defines ... So my only assumption is that ( i could be wrong) is that u must for some reasons best known to u be against what u assume me to be.
• An Eternal Now

  27 Jan 12, 22:03

  @Fugazzi:
  
  As much as you think otherwise fugazzi, there is such thing as right view, and such thing as wrong view. Right view is view based on truth - and that can be conventional truth (such as karma or rebirth) or ultimate truth - such as anatta/no-self and emptiness.
  
  And it is only when we obtain right view, then via right contemplation, we gain realization and dissolve all wrong views - view of self and so on.

  Honestly, I have never seen any practitioner or teacher realize anatta and emptiness/dependent origination without a background of right view.
  
  So in addition to what I have said in my long article, I will offer what Thusness have said:
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/View%20and%20Path?updated-max=2008-07-19T12:13:00%2B08:00&max-results=20
  
  After the experience of anatta, there is a period of desync between what experienced and the existing paradigm we used to orientate the world. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process.
  
  It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness.
  
  By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence".
  
  In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views.
  
  When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can then progress further. He rest neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality. He frees himself from erroneous views like "I am You and You are me". He sees “Everything as Awareness” but that is because in the world of Empty Luminosity, the practitioner is not bounded in a subject/object or object/attributes paradigm. “Awareness as Everything” should never be understood from a dualistic perspective.
  
  Lastly whatever said is really “already is”.
  
  In seeing, there is always only the seen. In hearing there is always only the sound. Never was there a seer or hearer.
  
  All “already is”. Anatta is truly a seal. How amazing!
  
  Homage to Buddha.
  
  .........
  

  The Disease of Non-Conceptuality

  Posted by: An Eternal Now

  I was looking back at some posts by Thusness and found one that really summarizes the problems of many people (including me, once, and many others I see in forums)...
  
  Thusness:
  
  (31 October 2010)
  
  Hi Geis,
  
  I 'fear' commenting about other's forum because AEN will create havoc in that forum after that...lol.
  
  Jokes aside but I think it is still too early to say that insight of anatta has arisen. There seem to be a mixing up and a lack of clarity of the following experiences that resulted from contemplating on the topic of no-self:
  
  1. Resting in non-conceptuality
  2. Resting as an ultimate Subject or
  3. Resting as mere flow of phenomenality
  
  In case 1 practitioners see ‘The seen is neither subjective nor objective.... it just IS....’
  In terms of experience, practitioners will feel Universe, Life. However this is not anatta but rather the result of stripping off (deconstructing) identity and personality.
  
  When this mode of non-conceptual perception is taken to be ultimate, the terms “What is”, “Isness”, “Thusness” are often taken to mean simply resting in non-conceptuality and not adding to or subtracting anything from the ‘raw manifestation’. There is a side effect to such an experience. Although in non-conceptuality, non-dual is most vivid and clear, practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. They are immobilized by trying to prevent the formation of views and concepts. When we see ‘suffering just IS’, we must be very careful not to fall into the ‘disease’ of non-conceptuality.
  
  In Case 2 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.
  
  For Case 3 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed. This is different from 'deconstructing of identity and personality' which is related to non-conceptuality but 'actual' seeing of the non-existence of agent in transient phenomena.
  
  Here practitioners will not only feel universe as in case 1 but there is also an immediate experience of our birth right freedom because the agent is gone. It is important to notice that practitioners here do not mistake freedom as ‘no right or wrong and remaining in a state of primordial purity’ ; they are not immobilized by non-conceptuality but is able to clearly see the ‘arising and passing’ of phenomena as liberating as there is no permanent agent there to ‘hinder’ the seeing. That is, practitioner not only realize ‘what experience is’ but also begin to understand the ‘nature’ of experience.
  
  To mature case 3 realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
  
  In my opinion, the blog that hosts the articles on “Who am I” and “Quietening the Inner Chatter” provide more in depth insights on non-duality, Anatta and Emptiness. The author demonstrates very deep clarity of ‘what experience is’ and the ‘nature (impermanent, empty and dependent originates according to supporting conditions)’ of experience.
  
  Just my 2 cents. :-)

  Labels: Anatta, Non Dual 0 comments | |

   

• Fugazzi

  27 Jan 12, 22:55

  I am open to anything that resonates of what is true, hence the stance of questioning and expereincing instead of simpy repeating and quoting something of the past that could have been true or untrue. Existence never repeats itself. Existence is allergic to any sort of dogmas, doctrines or idelogies What is true does not need to argued, does not need to agreed, or the need to parrot and quote theories or beliefs. The only ’’test’’ is for one to be self-HONEST n ask oneself is this – my making this statment or .. is it true or untrue in my own experience (not to be confused with psychological cos it is real only in one’s head)? All tht matters is where m i parking my mind or not parking, that suffices, cos existence (truth, soul, heart, liberation) never repeats itself and adopting the stance of i dont know and emptying all concepts of what is or is not, it may happen or not happen. I am not aspiring to achieve something nor do I care whether if it happens or not happen When one has a ''background' the most likely thing that may transpire is that one would bechecking and checking for progress or non-progess. Of course, for some they feel that it resonates with them. It is not rite/wrong, it is clarity of perception and even that differs cos one cannot discount the conditioining (aka programming) and as long one is living breathing and one cannot help it but only understand and abide to what is or what is not. in this instance, the thread about tradition and follwoing, why is there a need to follow, it is most probably cos of wanting certainty, wanting security, and if that were to be stance then one has to grapple with this reality - one is no longer evolving, one is vegetating. One is grwoing old when one can grow up . one is being a pond, one is no longer flowing.hence, I say existence knows no rite/wrong, knows no rules, dogmas, existence is a river and can one step into the same river twice. Pond certainly one can. Mind is a pond, Heart is a river flowing. the former is certainty, simply take ''out'' what has been acummulated n repeat. the latter cannot be acummulated one expereinces and whether one lets go and not makes no difference - existence is a parodox of happening/not happening.
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 00:28

  27 Jan `12, 8:53PM @Sushism, I m not a Muslim nor a Sufist nor a Buddhist nor do I belong to anything that defines … So my only assumption is that ( i could be wrong) is that u must for some reasons best known to u be against what u assume me to be.

  Oh, really? Does the " transcendence" you have been talking about also includes the transcendence of the notion and belief in GOD to attain true liberation? Or do you implicitly make the notion of GOD an exception? Heheheheheh....... Hahhahahahahah
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 00:51

  What is true (not truth) transcends Buddhism, Christianity or … . human mind defined and hence the predicament. When one defines, one confines oneself.

  @ Fugazzi Can you elaborate further what does your "what is true...." refers specifically to? In your opinion, should we also transcends this "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)"??? If we are to transcend religion but bind ourselves to the "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)", are we not the same as being bound and confined to religions, dogma, and views??? Hehehehehh......kekekeekekekk
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 01:51

  Can the sun be expereinced cos of one having a belief? There is no need, one simply knows. In that knowing what is there to believe. does a non-believer miss the sun? Does believing or not believing negate the existence of the sun? Ignorance belies beleifs! Holding onto beliefs blindly and never questioning them is akin to sheep bleating away. It is the lack of understanding and the fear of being found (that one’s beliefs may not hold up to the fire of reality) out that one knows not. simply parroting scriptures and repeating what could have an existential expereince for another is pretension and being blind to one’s ignorance. A beleif that is held onto not out of one’s love, not out of one’s knowing, not out of one’s knowing or experience – means this – that belief is out of one’s fear. How to believe in something that one has never expereinced for oneself? To say that i dont know and I am willing to find out and explore before I believe is intelligence. Being receptive, being open to …. is intelligence. Stupidity, is to deny that and simply quote others and …. this is bondage! Whether one is an atheist or non-atheist – both are still beliefs – it is closed book, finished and what is there to find out. One has already concluded what should be the end. One will never meet God and if one were to utter that i meet god�� – one is also real and so is god. In other words, there are two realities, not one. Is there such a thing as two realities? How can a omnipresence, a being have two realities? Reality is ’’self’‘-effulgence. One cannot come across god, one can come across godliness (aka a fragrance of one’s being …..?) – a process that never ends. Can the latter be objectified? Hence I say this – when one is being present to one’s being …, one is being present to another’s being … – a communion (two emptinesses, can it be counted as two?) However, when one is present to one’s self one can only be present to another’s self (this are two persons cannot become ’’emptinesses’). When one is ’’knowing’’, when one is ’’being’’ ... when one is ’’loving’’ – this is being real. In this instance, the thread about tradition and follwoing, why is there a need to follow, it is most probably cos of wanting certainty, wanting security, and if that were to be stance then one has to grapple with this reality – one is no longer evolving, one is vegetating. One is grwoing old when one can grow up. one is being a pond, one is no longer flowing.hence, I say existence knows no rite/wrong, knows no rules, dogmas, existence is a river and can one step into the same river twice. Pond certainly one can. Mind is a pond, Heart(*) is a river flowing. the former is certainty, simply take ’’out’’ what has been acummulated n repeat. the latter cannot be acummulated one expereinces and whether one lets go and not makes no difference – existence is a parodox of happening/not happening. One can step into a pond, but the expereince is always the same, why? it is dead. One can step into the river, but the experience will never be the same, why? it is an alive phenomenon. Of course, if one is ''dead'' one will have the same expereince of stepping into the pond, when the fact is one is actually stepping into a river that is flowing. Is there a need to transcend or not to transcend? (*) synonmous with soul, Existence. liberation, enlightenment, awakeing, God or ....... the labels differ but the expereince is of the same. When one melts five gold rings with differing shapes or designs, does the gold diminish in its essence.
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 02:29

  Can you elaborate further what does your "what is true...." refers specifically to? In your opinion, should we also transcends this "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)"??? If we are to transcend religion but bind ourselves to the "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)", are we not the same as being bound and confined to religions, dogma, and views??? Can what is true be compressed into a box? what is ''rite'' now can become a ''wrong'' the next instant. What is true now may become untrue. Hence I uttered what is true, not truth – what is true – it is a continuous tense, eg My being rude can end , my being polite can end. However when I m labelled as stupid, clever or smart – i am already reduced into a thing, a labelled product is finished. Hence, this word ’’being’’ may appear like another concept – on closer srutiny it is akin to a river flowing (rivering). it is existential and always moving and yet not moving (it is a paradoxical phenomenon). The mind is a pond, being is a river (rivering). Hence I say, when one is present to one’s ’’self’’’ (fictional) one is absent to one’s being ...! It could have been true and assuming that it was true, Jesus, Mohd, Buddha n ... shared the truth of their experience thru their being …?. They had a knowing! It can be likened to this predicament – eg. someone tells me that a flower near my house is beautiful. He/she expereienced it, and now telling me that it is so. I can believe it, but till I have really experienced it, it means nothing. If I go around telling someone that this particular flower is beautiful without existentially experincing it, i must be a hypocrite lah. At the most, it is psychological and socially possible. It could have been true and assuming that it was true, Jesus, Mohd, Buddha n ... shared the truth of their experience thru their being …?. They had a knowing! It can be likened to this predicament – eg. someone tells me that a flower near my house is beautiful. He/she expereienced it, and now telling me that it is so. I can believe it, but till I have really experienced it, it means nothing. If I go around telling someone that this particular flower is beautiful without existentially experincing it, i must be a hypocrite lah. At the most, it is psychological and socially possible. Knowing PRESUPPOSES knowledge – If someone tells me the Bible or the Koran or the ... is the truth. It may have been true for him/her. How can it be true for me if i dont know, and even before finding out n if I already conclude that it is truth based on what I have heard or read – what is there to know, i will simply look for ’’things’’/ expereinces to reinforce my beleifs or reject what does not reinforce my beliefs about or I will simply quote ... cos i simply believe it. If i am resistant to finding out – i can pretend, the reality is that i fear and suppress my doubts and reject anything that questions my beleifs. however, when i do not decide, on what is true or what is truth, but I am willing to find out the knowledge that I may have acquired from outside of myself may help/may not help (and ti will only help) when i am being open to … Using logic of the mind (intellect) and looking for logic in something that the human mind cannot grasp is fighting with what is not. Hence, I say parking one’s mind nowhere - there is a ''possibility'' of finding out. It it not out there but an inward journey and a journey not to attain or not attain cos there is nothing to be attained. Can two emptinesses meet? Can two beings meet? Transformation happens from the inner knowing. Change always from the outside. Change is akin to pruning the leaves and branches of a tree, it is superficial. Transformation is examining the roots and making the change from within. It has depth and there is a difference.
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 02:52

  "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, the name that can be named is not the eternal name."
• An Eternal Now

  28 Jan 12, 10:13

  Originally posted by Fugazzi:

  I am open to anything that resonates of what is true, hence the stance of questioning and expereincing instead of simpy repeating and quoting something of the past that could have been true or untrue. Existence never repeats itself. Existence is allergic to any sort of dogmas, doctrines or idelogies

  What is true does not need to argued, does not need to agreed, or the need to parrot and quote theories or beliefs. The only ’’test’’ is for one to be self-HONEST n ask oneself is this – my making this statment or .. is it true or untrue in my own experience (not to be confused with psychological cos it is real only in one’s head)?

  All tht matters is where m i parking my mind or not parking, that suffices, cos existence (truth, soul, heart, liberation) never repeats itself and adopting the stance of i dont know and emptying all concepts of what is or is not, it may happen or not happen. I am not aspiring to achieve something nor do I care whether if it happens or not happen

  When one has a ’’background’ the most likely thing that may transpire is that one would bechecking and checking for progress or non-progess. Of course, for some they feel that it resonates with them. It is not rite/wrong, it is clarity of perception and even that differs cos one cannot discount the conditioining (aka programming) and as long one is living breathing and one cannot help it but only understand and abide to what is or what is not.

  in this instance, the thread about tradition and follwoing, why is there a need to follow, it is most probably cos of wanting certainty, wanting security, and if that were to be stance then one has to grapple with this reality – one is no longer evolving, one is vegetating. One is grwoing old when one can grow up .
  one is being a pond, one is no longer flowing.hence, I say existence knows no rite/wrong, knows no rules, dogmas, existence is a river and can one step into the same river twice. Pond certainly one can. Mind is a pond, Heart is a river flowing. the former is certainty, simply take ’’out’’ what has been acummulated n repeat. the latter cannot be acummulated one expereinces and whether one lets go and not makes no difference – existence is a parodox of happening/not happening.

  The problem is that the truth of Buddhism is subtle, and though some with deep capacities are about the directly realize the truth that Buddha taught, most actually have to take it by faith before they contemplate and realize what is being taught.

  Because the truth of Buddhism is subtle and difficult, most need to go by faith, take the Buddha's words very seriously in order to realize what he meant.

  And the truth of Buddhism is not just 'existence' - it is the 'nature of existence', which includes the profound truth of emptiness (NOT 'god, existence, etc' but the lack of inherent existence).

  A lot of religions also realize 'existence', but they call it Self, God and so on, failing to realize the empty nature.

• An Eternal Now

  28 Jan 12, 10:17

  My point is not in 'following tradition' but the necessity to 'follow the Buddha's teachings' very very seriously if you truly want to be liberated from all sufferings like what Buddha teaches.

  The 'truth' of Buddhism is eternal.

• simpo_

  28 Jan 12, 10:55

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  The problem is that the truth of Buddhism is subtle, and though some with deep capacities are about the directly realize the truth that Buddha taught, most actually have to take it by faith before they contemplate and realize what is being taught.

  Because the truth of Buddhism is subtle and difficult, most need to go by faith, take the Buddha's words very seriously in order to realize what he meant.

  And the truth of Buddhism is not just 'existence' - it is the 'nature of existence', which includes the profound truth of emptiness (NOT 'god, existence, etc' but the lack of inherent existence).

  A lot of religions also realize 'existence', but they call it Self, God and so on, failing to realize the empty nature.

  Well said. Thanks :)

• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 12:49

  The meaning that was attributed to in the posting is not the dictionay meaning of existence and so was for the labels God, Self and ,..... Can one find existence, one can taste it, one can expereine it, can one conceptualize it? There is no meaning excepting what the human mind defines it to be, whiich is a limitation. Emptiness as Buddha had hinted to or not is about emptying ''ONESELF'' and ''partaking'' of his beingness .... one can expereince existence,it is not something to attain, iit is already herenow, all that is being aware that one is absent to oneself.. It is beyond meaning and hence the conundrum and utter confusion!
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 12:58

  PS It is utterly stupid to say that there is truth of Buddhism, true is truth. Is there such a thing as Mushlim truth? Christian truth? Buddhist condiitiong there is, Christian conditioning there is? If one were to say that i use a particualr religion to find the truth of existence or something to that effect - that is sensible, however that is meant for the earnest seeking the thirst, not followers!
• 2009novice

  28 Jan 12, 13:40

  Originally posted by Fugazzi:

  PS It is utterly stupid to say that there is truth of Buddhism, true is truth. Is there such a thing as Mushlim truth? Christian truth? Buddhist condiitiong there is, Christian conditioning there is? If one were to say that i use a particualr religion to find the truth of existence or something to that effect – that is sensible, however that is meant for the earnest seeking the thirst, not followers!

  
  the truth in buddhism doesn't involve any gods....

  funny truth right .... lol