This just shows that Buddhism is just an off-shoot of hinduism,
believing that nothing exists. They think we are in Plato's cave or
The Matrix. Siao. And if nothing actually exists to him why did he
post this here to non-existent people? LOL
Obviously you haven't been following what I've been telling
you.
As a brilliant 20 year old guy from another forum who had
experiential realisation of Anatta (after practicing Buddhism for
just a year. Thusness said he has deep karmic connection with
Buddhism) said -
(Just a note: when he talks about 'mind', he is not talking
about mind as a thought or a concept. He is talking about 'mind' as
your undeniable true self, pure awareness, that which knows
everything, it is pure presence and existence that pervades and is
not other than the entire manifest universe [non-dual])
Look, there is a reality out there. There is something
present that doesn't just vanish when you approach it. Now what is
present is ungraspable but it is not a nothingness. Like take a
mirage for instance. That is a perfect example of an actual
illusion. When you approach and investigate that mirage, it
dissapears. That means there was never anything there to begin
with. It was actually just a nothingness that you were tricked into
believing was something actually present. Now if I am looking at
this chair and I find that the chair cannot be said to exist, not
exist, both or neither then the chair still doesn't disappear does
it? Now, there is still a dependently arisen chair obviously
present. Yet as is said, the chair is like an illusion because it
is always changing and it has no self substance. But it not
actually an illusion because it isn't actually just a nothingness.
It doesn't vanish like a real illusion that I described would. So
the chair is both real and like an illusion but
not an illusion.
...............
I just told you. When you said "where is it?", it is right there.
It is that which knows, it is that knowingness, that awakeness. It
is formless, that is you cannot see that basic illuminating quality
of awareness yet, really, it is also all forms. Because there is no
seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the sound, etc. I'll
quote Bodhidharma for you in his "Bloodstream Sermon"
"Student: But if they don't define it, what do they mean by
mind?
Bodhidharma: You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind.
If I had no mind how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could
you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas"
without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your
real mind, that's your real buddha. This mind is the buddha" says
the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha.
To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is
impossible. The reality of your own self-nature the absence of
cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana.
You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere
beyond the mind', but such a place doesn't exist."
Got it?
If you deny that you have a mind, you are a nihilist and you are
not following any tradition of Buddhism. As I've said numerous
times, the mind is obviously present. For instance, in order to
deny you had a mind, you would have to use your mind thereby
refuting your own position. The mind may be the one and only thing
that we absolutely cannot doubt the existence of because it as
sensations, thoughts, etc. is the first and final basis of our
reality. It is present but it just that it is dependently arisen
and impermanent (always changing). Dependent arising means that
there is something (well not a "thing") present. That is what it
implies. There is something there that is arising dependently. That
is why it avoids nihilism. This "something" is sometimes called a
"clearly apparent non existent" or a "mere appearance." It is
clearly apparent because you can't deny that there is something
there yet it is not truly existent.
I don't laugh at the question of "who am I?." I've thoroughly
investigated that and I have found that "I" am a individual
mindstream which has currently taken the form of a human being and
which continuously changes and arises dependently and is thus
empty. This mindstream is not nothing but it is not something
(truly existent). It is beginningless and endless. There is no
controller in this mindstream which is outside of the sensations
manipulating the sensations. Any supposed controller would be
inseparable from the sensations themselves. That is, there are not
"two" things in this mindstream - a hearer and hearing. There is
just one happening in which the hearer and hearing are undivided.
Now I don't know everything about who "I" am yet but I do know some
very very important things. And I am not going to deny that.
No, no, no no, those words are not flexible at all. They have very
precise meanings within Buddhism. Dependent arising can't be used
to mean independent and impermanence cannot be used to mean
permanence. You can't just have words mean whatever you want them
to mean. You will get absolutely nowhere and will only confuse
yourself.
As to how the mind "comes" from immaterial things, you have to
understand that at the deepest level, the mind and material things
are said to be undivided. There is no border between them. You can
see this for yourself if you investigate deeply. Now this
particular area - the "all is mind" stuff is something that I'm
just getting into right now. So bear with me here. The ways I see
this is that the mind is the all and the mind has parts and
whatever has parts if empty. For instance, the mind as hearing is
the all - yet that mind as hearing has parts - the person, the
stick, the bell, the ears, etc. So it is empty because that mind
does not have own being apart from all those parts. The whole which
is the mind does not have independent being apart from the parts
which make it up and the parts do not have independent being apart
from other parts. Thus the parts and whole (the mind) are both
empty.
...............
Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if
we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the
mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and
matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this
mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises
dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for
instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of
mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total
moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of
mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about
dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not
truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because
there is obviously something present. And it is because without a
"thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non
existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something
that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If
something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never
been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not
existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there
be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them
together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say
neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that
there is existence and non existence both of which we have
previously refuted. So we can't say neither.
So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not
existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end,
it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's
presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative
and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative
is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The
relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is
dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the
mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's
ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about
being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the
world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really
the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of
the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind.
Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the
bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically
it.
...............
No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there
is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock
that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking
like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is
just an abstraction.
