Session Start: Thursday, 25 February, 2010


(9:00 PM) Thusness:  anyway your answer in newbuddhist forum is no good.

(9:00 PM) Thusness: you got to have a clearer picture of what is pure subjectivity and you must not be confused with subjective and objective reality. that is, are you skewed towards subjective reality or are you skewed towards objective reality. if beyond these 2 extremes, what is it...and what is the purpose of having right view of experiential reality? Buddhism is concerned with experiential reality. many only understand in terms of concepts...the article you posted in buddhism forum by Mr. J expresses it well. That is, he understands it directly. You are still unable to integrate non-dual experience and DO into your view.

(9:13 PM) AEN: oic.. what does Mr. J understand directly.. D.O? i don’t really understand what you mean by not confused with subjective and objective reality

(9:31 PM) Thusness: you are misunderstanding 'objective reality' with experiential reality. like the 'body' is just a mental construct that once seem so real, objective reality too must be treated as a mental construct no different from the case of the 'body'

(9:34 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:34 PM) Thusness: however when you do that, you might mistaken it as pure subjectivity. therefore you must practice and continue to refine your understanding till you completely purified all these tendencies to treat things as truly existing as in first 'mental constructs', then presence.

(9:37 PM) AEN: 'then presence'?

(9:37 PM) Thusness: what you have expressed so far cannot show clarity that you have integrate your views into just one whole field of experiential reality.

(9:38 PM) AEN: like what david carse said 'what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.'  however the article of Mr. J does but the view isn't clear.

(9:38 PM) AEN: oic. you mean Mr. J talks about dependent origination?

(9:38 PM) Thusness: nope... but he manage to understand from his realization and direct experience to resolve all into One Mind.

(9:39 PM) AEN: icic.. its like what david loy said rite: That sa?sara is nirva?a is a major tenet of Mahayana philosophy. "Nothing of sa?sara is different from nirva?a, nothing of nirva?a is different from sa?sara. That which is the limit of nirva?a is also the limit of sa?sara; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nagarjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirva?a." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa?sara is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirva?a is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madh

theres no objects, just one reality

wait... din copy completely: ...Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirva?a or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.

(9:43 PM) Thusness: one taste in both essence and nature of all arising.  but even at that phase, it is not One Reality as in Identical reality. or a truly existing 'One Whole Reality'.  this is what a practitioner after going through One Mind or the Advaita Vedanta experience will conclude

(9:46 PM) Thusness: what is the truth of this 'One Whole Reality' that a practitioner after maturing non-dual experience? Even a practitioner after maturing this state will not be able to sync his view with this experience.  because he is using a dualistic expression and not a DO view.

(9:48 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:49 PM) Thusness: this is the same as one that experience the pure presence of "Iness" and say that this "I" is the same "I" in you as in him and me. in non-dual state, the practitioner will still fall into the same trap -- the one whole reality. Get it?

(9:52 PM) AEN: hmm.. but what you mean by *but even at that phase, it is not One Reality as in Identical reality or a truly existing 'One Whole Reality'

- you mean at that level there is some understanding of emptiness

(9:52 PM) Thusness: no. what is the 'One Reality' that David Carse is talking about? is this a Subjective Reality or an Objective Reality?

(9:54 PM) AEN: neither

(9:55 PM) Thusness: an integration where there is no distinction that can be found between the subject-object-ive reality, as an integrated whole?

(9:56 PM) AEN: yah.. just oneness?

(9:56 PM) Thusness: is there such a 'Oneness Reality'? When we fall into this trap after non-dual experience, we are falling into the same trap as claiming that the 'I' in you is the same 'I' in me after the experience of "I AMness". so neither subjective nor objective nor the integration of both nor the interaction of both.  we think in such a way because of our 'inherent view'...that is why I said experience is not enough, you need the right view. so after this phase of One Mind, don't get over excited, refine the view (anatta and DO). also understand why this is important to end suffering

(10:06 PM) AEN: oic.. how is it important to end suffering?

(10:07 PM) Thusness: why are you asking me? I ask you to find out and you ask me.

(10:07 PM) AEN: oic.. can you read through my post

(11:33 PM) Thusness: good. don't write like that. you are confusing ppl.  think through first before you post

(11:34 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:35 PM) Thusness: delete that post first...

(11:35 PM) AEN: ya deleted

(11:35 PM) Thusness: when you write like that, you are like writing for the sake of writing. write about what do you think is the cause. why do ppl after direct experience came to that conclusion. what happen when that dualistic knot is gone

(11:38 PM) Thusness: what sort of reality you are talking about? think through first. don't just blah something you do not know

(11:39 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:39 PM) Thusness: many are very sincere in those stuff they wrote. and that includes element. he knows what he is writing

(11:40 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:40 PM) Thusness: do not write for the sake of writing. subjectivity9 is also sincere, writing from his own experience. Just that he is unable to see.

(11:41 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:41 PM) Thusness: what does liberation mean? to a dualistic mind, what does it mean?  to a non-dual mind, what does it mean?  to a practitioner that has matured his non-dual experience and is free from the view of a source, a center, a reference, what is liberation? so don't just talk about self-liberation as if you have reached tat state. you got to know what it meant

(11:44 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:44 PM) Thusness: when you say that, you are not discussing... so what is liberation when your mind is dualistic? how do you understand it?

(11:44 PM) AEN: by disassociation?

(11:45 PM) Thusness: through disassociation...yes. you always want to dis-associate. when you are non-dual what happen? when anatta what happened? when there is no source behind, what is there to dis-associate? so what is it like? and what is meant by self-liberation in this sense? it does not mean you are already liberated as like what you expressed...

(11:46 PM) Thusness: sound liberates. what does that mean? it just mean that do not attempt to think liberation in terms of dis-association. if you are not dis-associating, then how? it is the way a practitioner 'understand practice' after maturing his experiential insight of anatta into the natural state. it does not mean nothing to do, or it already liberates

no.... it does not mean that

(11:50 PM) AEN: oic..  does it mean that without disassociating nor grasping, phenomena itself arise and subside on itself

(11:53 PM) Thusness: phenomena is also arising and subsiding

(11:53 PM) Thusness: is always

so don't talk about that

(11:53 PM) AEN: icic

(11:53 PM) Thusness: just write what i told u. it is not that there is nothing to do as in the case of the advaita

(11:54 PM) AEN: oic

(11:55 PM) Thusness: don't talk as if you already know what self-liberation is. but say when the mind is dualistic, how it perceives liberation. and when non-dual, how he perceives it to be? when anatta, what is it like if there is no source, how is one to dis-associate? what is liberation like when a person experientially and truly realized that? how by resting in a dualistic and inherent view mistake 'dis-association' as the path. you posted an article in the past that spoke briefly about it

(11:58 PM) AEN: at sgforums?

(11:59 PM) Thusness: yeah...forgot his your blog too

(12:00 AM) AEN: djhampa?

i don’t remember posting his post in my blog lhe

(12:02 AM) Thusness: nope

(12:03 AM) Thusness: Dr. John Welwood (Soh: Reflection and Presence: The Dialectic of Awakening, a good read )

(12:03 AM) AEN: ooh icic

(12:05 AM) Thusness: you must understand what i told you above. what is meant by dualistic and inherent view and its power to shape our experience. so you know what is the relationship with the right view?

(12:08 AM) AEN: and liberation?

(12:08 AM) Thusness: yes

(12:09 AM) AEN: yeah.. better understand now.

(12:13 AM) Thusness: so what is the meaning of 'always and already so'? and what is practice like?

(12:16 AM) AEN: back sorry.. someone called me, wrong number. always and already so means awareness isnt separated and is actually everything arising moment to moment, so practice is just experiencing everything without dualistic and inherent view?

(12:17 AM) Thusness: what has that got to do with self liberation?

(12:17 AM) AEN: it does not require disassociating, just experiencing everything as it is without dualistic and inherent view?

(12:18 AM) Thusness: are you able to do that?

(12:18 AM) AEN: no

(12:18 AM) Thusness: why?

(12:18 AM) AEN: bcos i still have dualistic and inherent views

(12:18 AM) Thusness: yes. therefore you must know that because we see with such views, without such views, that is liberation. that is why right view is important. if 'dualistic and inherent' view is dissolved from the deepest depth of our consciousness, that already is liberation. therefore practice is to meet conditions and see whether inherent and dualistic view arise. if it arises, then how could there be no suffering

(12:21 AM) AEN: oic..

(12:21 AM) Thusness: therefore ignorance is the cause of suffering. it is the wrong view that shapes the experience. that experience with the wrong view is what that causes psychological and spiritual pain

(12:22 AM) AEN: oic..

(12:22 AM) Thusness: any moment you have that experience it is always so. so practice is dynamic to see such tendencies arise

(12:23 AM) AEN: icic..

(12:24 AM) Thusness: because a practitioner mature his non-dual and anatta experience, his practice is dynamic as he realizes that all arising already so and always is so -- luminous and empty but we mistaken it as dualistic and inherent. it is the deeply rooted wrong view that shape and distort experience that causes all problems. get it?

(12:25 AM) AEN: oic..

(12:25 AM) Thusness: it is not negative feelings is already liberated...all sort of nonsense. did i teach you that

like what Mr. J said? ignorance of seeing separation and inherent existence causes all these problems, and negative feelings arise because of that.  so at that moment when you see that it is non-dual and empty, it liberates.  if you do not experience that at the moment, how can you be liberated. when you try to get rid of the anger, you can't...either you are split or there is something inherent in u. so when you see the 'nature and essence' of any arising be it negative emotions or whatever as empty and luminous, it liberates. You see it with your entire body/mind/soul therefore it liberates. if you din see it, no. get it?

(12:34 AM) Thusness: you must see the nature and essence of all arising as so.

(12:37 AM) AEN: oic..

(12:39 AM) Thusness: therefore when Mr. J said, negative emotion is liberation, he is having inherent view. coz he sees awareness as the substance, and think that since it is it, it is liberation and yet feeling pain. so that is confusion due to desync of view and experience with no clarity of insight. not knowing what causes the pain

(12:40 AM) Thusness: so understand ignorance. understand how inherent and dualistic view causes the problem

(12:43 AM) AEN: icic.. you mean there is no pain when one experience self liberation?

(12:44 AM) Thusness: of course there is pain if there is pain. it is the all of what the sensations are

(12:44 AM) AEN: what you mean

(12:45 AM) Thusness: you mean when you taste sour you don't know that it is sour?

(12:45 AM) AEN: i know

(12:45 AM) Thusness: then when there is those sensations that arise due to the conditions, you deny those sensations? whatever that you have dissolved, it isn't there. whatever conditions that contribute to the arising, has to arise

(12:47 AM) AEN: oic.. but you said negative emotion is liberation is wrong view?


(12:50 AM) Thusness: only when you resolve that this pristine awareness is luminous yet empty, that is liberation

(12:50 AM) Thusness: not seeing pristine awareness as inherent and dual

0 Responses