Jump to content


Member Since 17 Oct 2007
Offline Last Active May 21 2014 09:29 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

19 May 2014 - 01:18 PM

I'm detecting a kind of contradiction here Kyle. I found this thread and not only does it tell me that you do occasionally broadcast your realizations, but it gives us more insight on your understanding of space...


Just as an aside, when you are in the space, you realize that thousands of thoughts can and do exist simultaneously, so I would have to disagree with the part in that post where G Goode posits that disfigured koan about only one thought can exist at a time. Perhaps to the subject in the immediate present, but "space" is beyond the subject.



I think this quote from Kyle is pretty clear on the meaning of space in Dzogchen, which like the term 'mirror is used as a symbol or metaphor, not as a literal description which would only lead to formless state. 



'Space' is merely a metaphor for awakened wisdom. Like space is unconditioned, unproduced, vast, open, clear, pure, unborn, undying, unadulterated, unassailable etc. awakened wisdom is like that. Emptiness is like that. 

Emptiness in Dzogchen and Madh
yamaka are exactly the same (so it would actually be inaccurate to say there's two differing philosophical uses): lack of inherency, freedom from extremes, illusory, unfindability. Everything is 100% empty in Dzogchen and in Madhyamaka. Emptiness allows for process and dynamism, if things existed inherently they'd be dead, stagnant, the basis (gzhi) wouldn't be able to display itself, there would be no possibility for awakening. 

Dependent origination in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka both apply to the 12 Nidanas. Dzogchen (unlike Madhyamaka) has both (i) afflicted dependent origination; which applies to the structuring of ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) and, (ii) unafflicted dependent origination; i.e. lhun grub which is known in vidyā (Tib. rig pa). Lhun grub, which means 'not made by anyone', is spontaneous natural formation (autopoiesis), which is truly self-origination. 

Dharmakāya is the epitome of emptiness, but also signifies the condition of a Buddha. It is a total freedom from extremes so we cannot say it is the 'fundamental nature of being as awareness', if dharmakāya was 'being' it would be conditioned, so free from extremes.

In Topic: Aiming at the space between thoughts…

08 May 2014 - 03:15 PM

Parinirvana means non-returning to the rounds of rebirth, absolute cessation. Not sure where you get the idea that it means one has reached the highest wisdom. Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?' 


This seems more like hinayana view, rather than mahayana. In mahayana it isn't understood that the mindstream ceases completely, ever, but that may be a goal in hinayana. Certainly is not a goal in mahayana, at least based on what I've read and heard



Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?'


From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."

In Topic: How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

07 May 2014 - 01:00 PM




Well, there are so many conginitive dissonant ideas in your post, that I may be once again just wasting my time talking to you.


This is just a friendly discussion. There's no need to take things personally.

Also, the quote you used does not say anything which supports what you say. You're reading too much into it based on your expectations and experiences, which is why I suggested a teacher, but of course it's your life and you don't have to listen to me.

"To penetrate the light is not to realize the cause of the light." It says so in the footnotes of the pdf you linked to, since you do not believe me.


Also from http://dharmafarer.o...imitta-piya.pdf



According to the Upakkilesa Sutta (M 128), when Anuruddha complains about his inability to
progress—when “light and the vision of forms”28 arise in his meditation, he simply let them cease—but
the Buddha advises that he “should penetrate the sign” (nimitta paivijjhitabba), that is, he should
know or master it.29 The Sutta’s Commentary explains this phrase as taṁ vo kāraṇaṁ jānitabbaṁ (“the
reason should be known”)



"To penetrate the light means to actually submerge in the light "  Nowhere is this suggested in the sutta. If you disagree, please show the exact sentence where this is implied. 


Vipassana is the practice of penetration, and in fact this language is used quite often by vipassana teachers, such as Mahasi Sayadaw. The goal is to penetrate the object, whether that's the nimitta or any other phenomena. To try to merge with the object is jhana meditation, but this in and of itself will not lead to liberation.  Anyway, see this thread where Daniel Ingram talks about this http://www.dharmaove.../message/283675



That link you quoted for learning about nimittas is just a piece of crap, written by a non-practitioner who has poor understanding of the factors and events. Radical interpretations of what Buddha really meant don't interest me. 


You're saying Venerable Bhikkhu Sona, abbot of the Birken Forest Monastery  is a non-practitioner who is full of crap? And where is the radical interpretation? 



 Vispassana is a practice, it is not a cause (as you stated). You do not 'directly see vispassana', you see something. You see the light with great clarity.  It is not seeing with the eyes, it is seeing with third-eye sight or from the very clear clean crisp space which lies above, near the crown in the center of the head.


I did not say vipassana is a cause. I said " to penetrate the light (the nimitta) means to directly see, or realize the cause of, which is vipassana." Vipassana is the practice of seeing the cause, gaining knowledge of, clearly seeing, etc. phenomena. You see the light with great clarity, but that's jhana. If you see the light and penetrate it, that means you see that the light is impermanent (made up of smaller moments of light which cause the next moment of light) and lacks inherency, thus penetrating the object to see its true nature. This is vipassana.



In the meantime, I recommend reading:


"Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond" - Ajahn Brahm

"Focused and Fearless" - Shaila Catherine

"The Attention Revolution" - Alan Wallace

"Wonders of the Natural Mind" - Tenzin Wangyal


Yes, these are good books. If you're interested in vipassana, Shaila Catherine's Wisdom Wide and Deep is quite good. 


In both Ajan Brahm's and Shaila Catherine's books, the nimitta is used as an object to enter jhana, so if that's your goal, that's great and I do not mean to discourage you. I am only saying that the Buddha did not gain enlightenment by focusing on the nimitta and entering jhana. That's all. :)

In Topic: How the Buddha Became Enlightened.

06 May 2014 - 09:36 PM


  I'm so excited! I found a passage where the Buddha tells the story of how he became enlightened.
  What I find exciting about it is that Buddha worked on obtaining his enlightenment. He worked with the Light and the Visions.  Through trial and error, he gradually learned how to make the Light and the Visions remain. He learned how to penetrate the Light. The Light!!!  (now I'm once again mad at AYP for parroting so many times that the Light is just scenery and should be ignored). Oh well..
  I also ask myself, if Buddha got enlightened by working hard, analysing and finally determining the factors that caused the Light and the Visions to remain, then why isn't everyone using this method? 




I think the clincher might be that in order to see the Light and Visions, one must have the "divine eye" developed sufficiently. Right now, I equate the 'divine eye' with the third eye. I get the visions and I see the Light. I just didn't realize that they are the key to enlightenment and that one has to learn, by themselves, exactly how to make them remain.

Perhaps I am lucky that I see the Light and the Visions, but then I have spent many years developing the third eye and if you'd ask me how it is done, I would simply say, location location location..  When you withdraw your consciousness starting from the area between the brow and then go back into the center of the head (after the body has fallen away), at a certain layer or frequency of consciousness, the visions appear. The area is about 1 1/2 inches behind the brow. Then, if you pull your attention back closer to the watcher, but not all the way to the watcher, that is where the intense bright light breaks through.






How are you getting all this from that passage? Nowhere does it say that the Buddha 'gradually learned how to make the light and the visions remain' This is the complete opposite of what the passage suggests. The light described is also not the light you're talking about. It's the nimitta, or sign, which precedes jhana or one pointed concentration. It is a mental phenomena correlated with the breath. If you want to learn more about nimitta, see this http://www.urbandhar...ma/nimitta.html  and this http://simplesuttas.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/jhana-wars-pt-6-the-great-nimitta-debate/ Also, you seem to be obsessing about visions and such, when the passage is clear that the Buddha realized the cause of the nimitta and visions by analyzing his experience. When it says "the knowledge and vision arose in me:" it does not mean that the knowledge and vision of forms arose. Vision in this context means seeing clearly. See this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html  Also, to penetrate the light (the nimitta) means to directly see, or realize the cause of, which is vipassana.


IMO you would really benefit from finding a teacher to guide you since you are mixing too many different ideas which are not very useful. If you are interested in jhana/vipassana meditation, a Theravada teacher can be of use. You can also contact Daniel Ingram directly for guidance on the Dharma Overground forum. He's an expert in both jhana and vipassana and is an authorizd teacher in the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage. If you're interested in Dzogchen, then it's best to find a teacher in a Dzogchen lineage. But learning from various passages and books and creating your own interpretations will only cause confusion. 

In Topic: Thusness and His Path.

14 April 2014 - 11:50 AM

What's with the hostility GrandmasterP? Thusness is not a guru and isn't selling anything. You're making baseless assumptions. The lingo here is standard dharma talk. If there's something you don't understand, you can simply ask. But coming in here and acting this way is pretty disrespectful