What is objective?

[godnotgod]

Who is bound? (A question more worthy of attention might be "How are they bound?" That which binds them would then be the means by which they are liberated--their sentience--Buddha Nature.)

They are bound by their very sentience in the illusory state of Identification, thinking themselves as 'I', the self. The realization/awakening must come, via their own Buddha nature, that they in fact are not bound at all, because there is no such 'self' that can be bound.

When this occurs, there no longer exists the duality of 'self and other', but rather that one is, and always was, none other than 'That', ie: 'tat tvam asi'. As Deepak Chopra says: "The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality."

This is why Buddhists say that Nirvana and Samsara are not different.

The consciousness that is dreaming of being a dragon slayer is the same consciousness which awakens.

 

[crossfire]

They are bound by their very sentience in the illusory state of Identification, thinking themselves as 'I', the self. The realization/awakening must come, via their own Buddha nature, that they in fact are not bound at all, because there is no such 'self' that can be bound.

When this occurs, there no longer exists the duality of 'self and other', but rather that one is, and always was, none other than 'That', ie: 'tat tvam asi'. As Deepak Chopra says: "The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality."

This is why Buddhists say that Nirvana and Samsara are not different.

The consciousness that is dreaming of being a dragon slayer is the same consciousness which awakens.

I see this as the inward journey, imo. When you look outward into the objective, you can reason using subject-object. However, when you look inward, subject-object reasoning doesn't work so well once you get past mindfulness of the body. In order to make further progress into the mind, you need to drop the subject-object method and switch to following processes rather than objects--cause and effect.

 

[crossfire]

I see this as the inward journey, imo. When you look outward into the objective, you can reason using subject-object. However, when you look inward, subject-object reasoning doesn't work so well once you get past mindfulness of the body. In order to make further progress into the mind, you need to drop the subject-object method and switch to following processes rather than objects--cause and effect.

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." (pokes finger in eye, expecting doctor to examine the eye)
Doctor: "Well then, don't do that!"

 

[godnotgod]

I see this as the inward journey, imo. When you look outward into the objective, you can reason using subject-object. However, when you look inward, subject-object reasoning doesn't work so well once you get past mindfulness of the body. In order to make further progress into the mind, you need to drop the subject-object method and switch to following processes rather than objects--cause and effect.

subject/object, whether outward or inward, is just a mental formation. The problem is the self. 'self and other' have already been created, where no such distinction exists in actuality. What we see as a distinct 'self' is 100% integrated with the entire universe. We tend to see the universe in terms of a separate observer, but in fact we are none other than a total action of the universe itself, just as a wave is a total action of the ocean out of which it emerges, and to which it returns.

Let us not confuse 'form' with 'things'.

The problem with 'making further progress into the mind', is that it is the mind itself which is creating the subject/object split in the first place. What needs to occur is to stop all of the activities of the mind. That is when this merging of observer and observed will occur.

"Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind"
Patanjali

IOW, 'merging' is already the case; Buddha nature is already the case. What is necessary is simply for the eyes to open in order to see that. But the discursive mind (ie 'monkey mind'), must first become quiet. Only then can 'Big Mind' come into play.

 

[crossfire]

subject/object, whether outward or inward, is just a mental formation. The problem is the self. 'self and other' have already been created, where no such distinction exists in actuality. What we see as a distinct 'self' is 100% integrated with the entire universe. We tend to see the universe in terms of a separate observer, but in fact we are none other than a total action of the universe itself, just as a wave is a total action of the ocean out of which it emerges, and to which it returns.

Let us not confuse 'form' with 'things'.

The problem with 'making further progress into the mind', is that it is the mind itself which is creating the subject/object split in the first place. What needs to occur is to stop all of the activities of the mind. That is when this merging of observer and observed will occur.

"Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind"
Patanjali

IOW, 'merging' is already the case; Buddha nature is already the case. What is necessary is simply for the eyes to open in order to see that. But the discursive mind (ie 'monkey mind'), must first become quiet. Only then can 'Big Mind' come into play.

In other words:

Mu.

Is a lecture beforehand really necessary if you must forget about it?

 

[godnotgod]

In other words:

Is a lecture beforehand really necessary if you must forget about it?

LOL...remember there are others here who may be seeing this for the first time. Zen teaches that we should have both the intuitive understanding and the intellectual understanding. Having said that....

MU!

 

[godnotgod]

For those new to "Mu", here is some dialogue for you to mull over:

Does a Dog Have Buddha-nature?

....from the article:

[A student] asked: "Does an oak tree also have Buddha-nature or not?"
The master said: "It has."
[The student] said: "Then when will it become a Buddha?"
The master said: "When the sky falls to the earth."
[The student] said: "When will the sky fall to the earth?"
The master said: "When the oak tree becomes a Buddha."

NOTE: bear in mind that the phrase 'become a Buddha' is just a convention of speech. Nothing ever 'becomes' a Buddha. In fact, all becoming is to come to an end, if Buddha nature is to be realized. And so we have the koan:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

 

[crossfire]

For those new to "Mu", here is some dialogue for you to mull over:

Does a Dog Have Buddha-nature?

....from the article:

[A student] asked: "Does an oak tree also have Buddha-nature or not?"
The master said: "It has."
[The student] said: "Then when will it become a Buddha?"
The master said: "When the sky falls to the earth."
[The student] said: "When will the sky fall to the earth?"
The master said: "When the oak tree becomes a Buddha."

NOTE: bear in mind that the phrase 'become a Buddha' is just a convention of speech. Nothing ever 'becomes' a Buddha. In fact, all becoming is to come to an end, if Buddha nature is to be realized. And so we have the koan:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

"When all is thrown away
There's nothing to remember."​

 

[godnotgod]

"When all is thrown away
There's nothing to remember."​

ha ha...now tell me: who is it that is 'throwing all away'?...and who is it that does not remember?

If there is no self, then where is there any baggage that the self has accumulated?

Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?

Hui Neng, Sixth Zen Patriarch

The Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng

Mu

...and if 'all is empty from the beginning', then what is it that knows that?

 

[crossfire]

ha ha...now tell me: who is it that is 'throwing all away'?...and who is it that does not remember?

If there is no self, then where is there any baggage that the self has accumulated?

Hahahaha! It seems you are thoroughly "Self" obsessed!

Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
~Eleanor Roosevelt
​

 

[godnotgod]

"When all is thrown away
There's nothing to remember."​

ha ha...now tell me: who is it that is 'throwing all away'?...and who is it that does not remember?

If there is no self, then where is there baggage?

Hahahaha! It seems you are thoroughly "Self" obsessed!

mmmmm.....just sayin'........no self...no baggage. story end.

 

[crossfire]

ha ha...now tell me: who is it that is 'throwing all away'?...and who is it that does not remember?

If there is no self, then where is there baggage?


mmmmm.....just sayin'........no self...no baggage. story end.

Self or no-Self, you still seem obsessed! (See post #23

 

[godnotgod]

Self or no-Self, you still seem obsessed! (See post #23

All of my posts point to what the Heart Sutra is saying: 'all phenomena, including ourselves, have no inherent self-nature', that is to say, all things are empty. So what do you mean?

 

[crossfire]

All of my posts point to what the Heart Sutra is saying: 'all phenomena, including ourselves, have no inherent self-nature', that is to say, all things are empty. So what do you mean?

The view of No-Self is a Self-view that leads to a thicket of views that becomes a fetter.

from post 23:

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

Also, from the Hsin Hsin Ming:

Do not seek the real
But your false views lay down.
Avoid the real and the false
And never search for either.​

 

[godnotgod]

The view of No-Self is a Self-view that leads to a thicket of views that becomes a fetter.

No. 'no self-view' is simply 'no particular view'. View without self is the view of universal consciousness.

When it is realized that there is no inherent self-nature, there can be no self-view, and therefore, can be no 'thicket of views'. IOW, there is neither self-view nor no-self-view, which are relative views. There is only the unfettered seeing of things as they are, which is absolute. This kind of view is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned.

I have been consistent in my dialogue with you about this. Do you see any such 'thicket of views' on my part?

 

[crossfire]

No. 'no self-view' is simply 'no particular view'. View without self is the view of universal consciousness.

When it is realized that there is no inherent self-nature, there can be no self-view, and therefore, can be no 'thicket of views'. IOW, there is neither self-view nor no-self-view, which are relative views. There is only the unfettered seeing of things as they are, which is absolute. This kind of view is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned.

I have been consistent in my dialogue with you about this. Do you see any such 'thicket of views' on my part?

the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.
This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.​

Is the clinging to the notion of the Absolute not a fetter?

 

[godnotgod]

the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.
This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.​

Is the clinging to the notion of the Absolute not a fetter?

Yes, but there is a notion of the Absolute, then there is The Absolute itself.

Who is it that clings?

When I said that universal consciousness is absolute, I meant that there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, it cannot be compared to a personal view simply because personal, or self-views are illusory, and as such, do not exist in reality for comparison to the absolute. The only true reality is the absolute, and because it is, the duality of the subjective/objective, as it relates to the topic, is illusory. Subjective/objective are the creations of the self; of mind, which itself is self-created.

Your quote of the lines in this post from the sutta tells me you are misunderstanding its message as it relates to what I am saying. The lines which you quote out of context, are actually saying that there is yet another self-view, in which one sees the self as eternal. I have said not only the opposite, but that the self is illusory.

All self-views, including the notion of 'self' itself, are products of the thinking mind. The view that is Unborn, Uncreated, Unconditioned, is not a product of the thinking mind, but is the view of pure consciousness without thought, and sees things as they are, rather than how the thinking mind conceptualizes them to be, such as 'subective/objective', 'I'/'not-I', etc.

I fail to understand your diversion from the content of the discussion into an area of the personal, in which it 'seems' to you that I am 'self-possessed', whatever that means. This amounts to a self-view on your part, yes?

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but there is a notion of the Absolute, then there is The Absolute itself.

Who is it that clings?

When I said that universal consciousness is absolute, I meant that there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, it cannot be compared to a personal view simply because personal, or self-views are illusory, and as such, do not exist in reality for comparison to the absolute. The only true reality is the absolute, and because it is, the duality of the subjective/objective, as it relates to the topic, is illusory. Subjective/objective are the creations of the self; of mind, which itself is self-created.

Your quote of the lines in this post from the sutta tells me you are misunderstanding its message as it relates to what I am saying. The lines which you quote out of context, are actually saying that there is yet another self-view, in which one sees the self as eternal. I have said not only the opposite, but that the self is illusory.

All self-views, including the notion of 'self' itself, are products of the thinking mind. The view that is Unborn, Uncreated, Unconditioned, is not a product of the thinking mind, but is the view of pure consciousness without thought, and sees things as they are, rather than how the thinking mind conceptualizes them to be, such as 'subective/objective', 'I'/'not-I', etc.

I fail to understand your diversion from the content of the discussion into an area of the personal, in which it 'seems' to you that I am 'self-possessed', whatever that means. This amounts to a self-view on your part, yes?

You're right. Every time you ask "who," you are looking where to assign Personal Views. I shouldn't concern myself with your Personal Views. Toodles.

 

[godnotgod]

You're right. Every time you ask "who," you are looking where to assign Personal Views. I shouldn't concern myself with your Personal Views. Toodles.

I am sorry for your misunderstanding as to what the question points to. To ask 'who' is not to find where to assign personal views, but instead to make one aware of what exactly 'who' is by seeing directly into its nature: an illusory description of an action as a thing. In short, it reveals the reality that one's true nature is not the experiencer of the experience. One is none other than the experience itself. There is no such 'self' that maintains a 'personal view'.

Every time I ask 'who', I am bringing one's conscious attention to that which is asking the question, whether it be a 'who' or a 'what'. The question is designed to make one aware of personal views in the context of universal view. You see, most of humanity is focused on the foreground of life, it's attention being captured by the glitter of everyday life and its noise, while ignoring the background, thereby creating a karmic-driven personal identity, with it's accompanying personal views, all a fictional drama.

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed — that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.

Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung Sahn

 

[crossfire]

I am sorry for your misunderstanding as to what the question points to. To ask 'who' is not to find where to assign personal views, but instead to make one aware of what exactly 'who' is by seeing directly into its nature: an illusory description of an action as a thing. In short, it reveals the reality that one's true nature is not the experiencer of the experience. One is none other than the experience itself. There is no such 'self' that maintains a 'personal view'.

Every time I ask 'who', I am bringing one's conscious attention to that which is asking the question, whether it be a 'who' or a 'what'. The question is designed to make one aware of personal views in the context of universal view. You see, most of humanity is focused on the foreground of life, it's attention being captured by the glitter of everyday life and its noise, while ignoring the background, thereby creating a karmic-driven personal identity, with it's accompanying personal views, all a fictional drama.

You are quite right--I don't understand Advaita!