Realization

[Rick]

So this notion of luminous mind is very subtle. It can never be realized by theorizing about it or believing in it.

Anam Thubten is my root teacher!

What I see happening in me is a gradual moving from obvious theories/beliefs about IT (realization) to increasingly subtle ones. Emptiness is the definitive (and probably most subtle) teaching of Buddhism ... yet even emptiness can be made latched onto as theory/belief.

To be truly free(empty) of all signposts and relax into it instead of fighting against it ... that's not an easy thing to do.

[Grigoris]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course you can.

[Bundokji]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course you can.

What is the condition for impermanence?

[Grigoris]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course you can.

What is the condition for impermanence?

What is the cause of emptiness?

[Drenpa]

Of course you can.

What is the condition for impermanence?

What is the cause of emptiness?

Interdependence. Tis the doughnut that makes the hole.

[florin]

What is the condition for impermanence?

What is the cause of emptiness?

Interdependence. Tis the doughnut that makes the hole.

How can interdependence that is itself empty be a cause for its own emptiness ?

[Bundokji]

What is the cause of emptiness?
[/quote]

depending on what you mean by emptiness.

[Grigoris]

What is the cause of emptiness?

depending on what you mean by emptiness.

Hoisted by your own petard.

[Malcolm]

What does it mean to 'realize' something?

Understanding + experience = realization.

[Malcolm]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course one can.

[Bundokji]

depending on what you mean by emptiness.
Hoisted by your own petard.

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

First the categorical answer,
then the qualified,
third, the type to be counter-questioned,
& fourth, the one to be set aside.
Any monk who knows which is which,
in line with the Dhamma,
is said to be skilled
in the four types of questions:
hard to overcome, hard to beat,
profound, hard to defeat.
He knows what's worthwhile
& what's not,
proficient in (recognizing) both,
he rejects the worthless,
grasps the worthwhile.
He's called one who has broken through
to what's worthwhile,
prudent,
wise.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

My answer belongs to the second type. If you felt that my answer was evasive, then please explain why?

[Bundokji]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course one can.

Is not the mind that moves?

[florin]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course one can.

And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.

[Malcolm]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course one can.

Is not the mind that moves?

Why is mental movement a problem in experiencing impermanence directly?

[Bundokji]

Why is mental movement a problem in experiencing impermanence directly?

Experience happens in time, and time implies movement/change, so in it, nothing seem to be known directly.

For example, to claim that something has changes is a statement conveying knowledge. The knowledge of change seem to arise as the following:

1- A perceived in a certain state
2- A perceived later in a different state

Conclusion:
A has changed

This is why i said change cannot be perceived directly, but inferred. Without self view, there can be no change.

[Malcolm]

You cannot experience impermanence directly...

Of course one can.

And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.

Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the Mdo bcu states:

By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.

This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the Kun byed rgyal po states:

By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.

[Grigoris]

My answer belongs to the second type. If you felt that my answer was evasive, then please explain why?

Your answer belongs to the category of eel wriggling:

"There are, monks, some contemplatives & brahmans who, being asked questions regarding this or that, resort to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling, on four grounds... There is the case of a certain brahman or contemplative who does not discern as it actually is that 'This is skillful,' or that 'This is unskillful.' The thought occurs to him: 'I don't discern as it actually is that "This is skillful," or that "This is unskillful." If I... were to declare that "This is skillful," or that "This is unskillful," desire, passion, aversion, or resistance would occur to me; that would be a falsehood for me. Whatever would be a falsehood for me would be a distress for me. Whatever would be a distress for me would be an obstacle for me.' So, out of fear of falsehood, a loathing for falsehood, he does not declare that 'This is skillful,' or that 'This is unskillful.' Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling: 'I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.'

You are incapable of defining emptiness, yet you feel you can make statements like: "You cannot experience impermanence directly..."

You were hoisted on your own petard.

[florin]

Of course one can.

And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.

Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the Mdo bcu states:

By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.

This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the Kun byed rgyal po states:

By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.

Sure .But for me these pasages only make sense with regards to pointing out the connection between the teoretical ideas presented during the oral transmission, where certain ultimate truths are expressed and the ultimate meaning of our nature and how one can connect these ideas with actual experience.
Since" impermanence " is a concept of sutra i do not see how the above passages point to a connection between conceptuality and the so called experience of "impermanence".
I do not see how the conceptuaity of " impermanence" can lead one beyond itself where one experiences "impermanence " as "impermanence" without the involvement of the partial mistaken apprehension by the deluded mind .
What i am trying to say is that "impermanence " becomes a caracteristic, an atribute and i dont see how one can escape that, so in the end impermanence remains a label.

[Bundokji]

You are incapable of defining emptiness, yet you feel you can make statements like: "You cannot experience impermanence directly..."

You were hoisted on your own petard.

At least, i gave an explanation to my statement, you can refer to my reply to Malcolm if you want to. You on the other hand, made an assertion that impermanence can be experienced directly, and at that things remain so far.

Can you refute that change is a conclusion based on comparing two states of the same thing? If you do, do not hesitate.

[Grigoris]

At least, i gave an explanation to my statement...

An unconvincing explanation.

You on the other hand, made an assertion that impermanence can be experienced directly, and at that things remain so far.

You did not ask me how I know this, or why I said this.

Can you refute that change is a conclusion based on comparing two states of the same thing? If you do, do not hesitate.

What is the cause/condition of impermanence?