Soh
June 14 · Brisbane
Nice post by Kyle in Emptiness group.
Kyle Dixon Nenad, If you insist that your point of view is somehow the correct treatment of these issues, then yes it may certainly appear as if "this group seems to be too much focused on that type of confusion". However, this group also does not insist that the so-called individual is merely a thought, but rather explores the fact that the illusion of an individual reference point depends on multiple factors.
So while HoM is very happy with simply denying thought, and then identifying with 'this that is', touting that there cannot be multiple factors because "there is only one"... emptiness traditions do not do this. For traditions associated with emptiness inquiry, the illusion of an individual is also created by imputation, but other factors such as habitual patterns of grasping which create the appearance of identification go into the illusion as well.
HoM may state that a belief cannot be held, nor let go of, on the grounds that the individual who would perform such actions is an abstraction which is suggested by thought. However, in the opinion of emptiness traditions; while the alleged identity may be partly a byproduct of imputation, that imputation also becomes interwoven into the fabric of behavior that the illusory entity appears to involve itself with. So in addition to that imputation, there is other conditioning. And the actions predicated upon that conditioning occur habitually.
I bring this up because the very act of 'holding' or grasping is another factor which reifies a subject relating to objects. For the very act of 'holding' presupposes something to be held and a subject to hold it, and that activity in and of itself implies these two. The action or activity literally creates the illusion of a subject-object dichotomy, and if that illusion is not seen for what it is, then the entire process runs away with itself, becoming an intricate and delusional structure of habitual tendencies which are conventionally referred to as a 'self'. Again, there is no self contained therein, within, or apart from that activity, but the delusion surrounding that activity cannot see that in the absence of insight which reveals it to be so.
For example, if we were to say there is only unpleasant emotions and no entity which is feeling those emotions; emptiness would argue that those emotions are still arising due to either accepting or rejecting. The very act of accepting and/or rejecting presupposes something to be accepted or rejected, and the very act itself (along with the presupposition the action is based upon) is precisely what the entity is. The entity cannot be found apart from that action, and ultimately the so-called entity cannot be found within that action either, but under the sway of delusion this is not apparent. That is what the notion of karma truly is: 'action', but it is delusional action which is predicated upon the misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., is valid. So emptiness seeks to penetrate these subtle assumptions, presuppositions, conditioning behaviors and so on by revealing the unreality of the factors they are based upon. It is a very thorough and comprehensive process, which is also very liberating. If done skillfully it utterly exhausts these subtle tendencies and neuroses, and with the pacification of those tendencies, the illusion of the entity which can exist or not exist is also pacified.
HoM of course scoffs at this because in your view you merely negate the thought of an 'I', or the thought of a 'me', thoughts of 'they', 'he', 'she', etc., on the presupposition that what you really are is the faculty of knowing which is inseparable from what is known. So your 'ultimate' (knowing-known) is readily available and quite easy to intuit by dispensing with what you refer to as 'thought-stories' and simply recognizing the inseparability of the knower and known. And that is all well and good, but a completely different view.
So when you make a statement such as 'this group is focused too much on that type of confusion', it is because in your opinion, and in the opinion of HoM, who carry a certain view, such things are not required. And this is due to the nature of the view you seek to engender, which is utterly different from the view of emptiness.
Now, does emptiness ultimately contend that all of the aforementioned delusional actions, dependencies, illusory entities and so on are valid and true? Not at all. But they appear to be for those who are caught up in the throes of that ignorance. In response to that HoM would merely say, "well there is no one to be caught up in anything!" And that is partly true, but not in the sense that HoM means, where thought is merely being objectified by thought. That type of view does not cut through the illusion of entityhood. That is why you see people in HoM who merely state that negative emotions and expressions of that nature simply appear 'to no one', which honestly is just a subtle form of depersonalization it is little more than a form of suppression and repression, where you identify with the knowing and attempt to intuit that "everything is me", "I'm all of this, even the so-called negative stuff which really isn't negative because it's all me and I am it, yet at the same time there is no me".... that type of view is all well and good but it is not an acceptable resolution to the deeply engrained habitual patterns which give rise to the illusion of an individual. The individual still persists in that type of view, it is only transferred onto a new form of itself, in most cases far more fortified than the previous individual.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7
Kyle Dixon In addition to 'action' which is predicated upon the misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., are valid; another aspect of the issue is that those dependencies and relationships themselves, directly arise from that action. Though only apparently. The grasping [action predicated upon delusion] presupposes the grasped [object], however the very act of grasping directly manifests the grasped through implication, the very arising of the grasped [object] implies, and therefore appears to give rise to the grasper [subject] and so on. Each implied factor becomes the cause for (and effect of) each corresponding factor, and the illusory web of factors build exponentially as a result.
At no time within this apparent process do any of these attributes (subjects, objects and so on) actually inherently arise, but they appear to. And becoming taken in by that process, conditioned by it and investing in it, is precisely the occurrences which solidify our experiences as independent and autonomous beings which exist in an environment separate from us, living lives extended in time which will eventually end, and so on.
As familiarization with these afflictive processes build up and solidify, they become more deeply engrained and at a certain point, the myriad pieces of our experiences (which are implied by these processes) are then mistaken to be inherent aspects of an inherent experience. We become conditioned, and we only ever know and relate to the imaginary figments of these processes, so attachment to them arises, aversion to other aspects arise, and as a result of that, the implied aspects of experience are solidified even further. Eventually we are here, as we are, fully entrenched in this intricate and deceitful web.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7
LikeLike ·
James O'Neill, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Tan Jui Horng and 11 others like this.
Soh This is similar to what I wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../early... :
Lastly it is the fetter of ignorance (avijja) that the arahant overcomes -- the Buddha defines ignorance as ignorance of the four noble truths, but the four noble truths is linked all the truths that we discover - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness/suffering, not-self, dependent origination, etc. So if you truly, fully, comprehend the four noble truths, you also overcome the perception of permanence, satisfactoriness, self, independence, inherency, and so forth.
If you see the four noble truths, you clearly see dependent origination in action. You clearly perceive that suffering - the eight kinds of suffering - is rooted in craving, in grasping, in delusion, and you clearly perceive that there is path which leads to the end of that craving, that grasping, that delusion.
So you see dependent origination Directly, not just as an inference, but you see ignorance in action - what does ignorance means? What does karmic propensities mean? Many of us think of karmic propensities and ignorance as being some kind of ghostly, hidden, almost mystical force hiding somewhere and affecting our lives from a hidden 'subconscious' component of consciousness stored away from sight. That is having an inherent view, a self-view of ignorance and karmic propensities. We need to directly See that cause of suffering and that suffering as the total exertion of our experience in seamless dependencies.
As Thusness say, having the view of afflicted dependent origination is having the enlightened view. The enlightened view does not conceive of a sufferer, suffering does not come from a self. How does it arise? Based on conditions - delusion, grasping, craving.
The totality of our experience is being shaped moment by moment by our delusions (either that, or by wisdom), by our sense of self, and with it all kinds of grasping and craving and afflictions. Taste it, see it for yourself, what is it like? See that grasping in action, see that becoming in action, see the birth of suffering. Only when you see suffering and the cause of suffering, only then can you realize the path and the end of that suffering. (Otherwise you become some neo-advaitins that say the path is not necessary)
And the moment you perceive the nature of that - that every phenomena is dependently arising, is empty of a self, is empty of inherent existence, at that moment, by realizing the four noble truths you realize dependent origination and you realize emptiness. And with that, you attain liberation. That is how overcoming the ignorance of the four noble truths is so crucial. From a view that a Subject interacts with an Object, to a view of seamless process of dependencies without self/Self, and furthermore clarity into the workings of delusion, grasping, craving I-making and suffering.
Awakening to Reality: Early Buddhism's Model of Awakening
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
June 14 at 12:56pm · Like · 8 · Remove Preview
David Vardy What's liberated is a kind of self talk which is reiterated and circular, in effect presuming all along that there's someone who needs to be liberated. Its absence reveals no such animal whether it happens in a moment or virtually continuous.
June 14 at 1:40pm · Like
Soh In a sense yes, but the sense of self is not merely mental narratives or a voice happening in the head, they seem to be totally real - albeit fictitious - it's like a hypnogogic state where what you think becomes what you see and hear, except this time it's the fiction of self being created into apparent reality and becomes exerted in all states of passion, aggression and delusion pertaining to pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations/experiences. This is the 12 links in action. That is the total exertion of karmic propensities. Just like the sense of background I AM/Eternal Witness is the total exertion of karmic propensities, shaping into your apparent reality. It does not appear as merely a narrative but it appears as your reality, and that is what karmic propensities is - literally a kind of spell.
June 14 at 2:00pm · Edited · Like · 5
David Vardy No doubt, but the fiction itself is thought based. The sheer speed of it is not unlike a rapidly spun web in which we 'find ourselves' wrapped up in; its fragility based on the fact it can stop right in its tracks, and its strength the fact that is doesn't rest.
June 14 at 2:02pm · Unlike · 2
Din Robinson the whole idea is to see what Soh is talking about in his last post, see it as it's happening in your own life, it useless to just talk about it, see it as it's happening, be aware of it rather than totally identified with it
June 14 at 3:27pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh One can be aware of the tendencies and at the same time unable to release them. On the other hand, if one becomes aware of it from a perspective of being a detached observer leading towards dissociation, then it in fact strengthens the karmic propensities - the sense of subject-object duality. Under the spell of dualistic tendencies, one conceives of practice as a process of dissociation, and abiding as a sense of witnessing awareness. This in fact strengthens karmic propensities instead of releasing them. By being so called 'aware' while holding onto the sense of subjectified Awareness, one is being blind to the very propensities in action itself.
The only way to resolve them is by deepening both wisdom/insight and meditative composure. In terms of wisdom, deep insight into emptiness of self and awareness first (seeing there is absolutely no one, no observer, no agent, including a conceived 'awareness' behind experience and thus in seeing only the seen no seer, in hearing just sound, etc, not as a state but as an insight into no-self), then the emptiness and non-arising of phenomena.
June 14 at 3:39pm · Edited · Like · 8
Soh For one who has gone deeply into 'Awareness teachings', the only way of initial entry into the emptiness of self is to investigate and see through any delusions of a subjective Awareness having its own essence, changeless, independent, etc. This is because there is deep reification and identification to 'Awareness'. The initial entry to emptiness of self in such a case would be to realize that 'awareness' is only ever a convention - like 'weather' - for the direct experience of manifestation - sensation of breeze blowing, shapes and colours that we call 'cloud', and in the case of 'awareness' - in seeing only the seen no seer, in hearing only sound no hearer, etc - awareness is only ever self-aware manifestation, not an agent nor a container for which things arise/subside. And realizing this is only the initial insight into firstfold emptiness, there is secondfold emptiness.
June 14 at 3:42pm · Edited · Like · 7
Din Robinson "This is because there is deep reification and identification to 'Awareness'."
yes, this is a good reminder, nothing to hold onto at all, and no one who needs to do it, there can't be complete freedom if there's a possibility of not being free
what is secondfold emptiness?
June 14 at 3:59pm · Like · 1
Din Robinson "One can be aware of the tendencies and at the same time unable to release them."
in my own experience, seeing them IS release from them, even though the tendencies continue, for who could this be a problem?
it's like having a problem if the wind keeps blowing...
June 14 at 4:01pm · Like
Soh There is a difference between deconstructing a construct on mind/intellectual level, and the deconstructing leading to direct realization and direct taste. This is what is crucial for anatta.
For example when we say 'do not grasp onto an image of awareness', or 'there is no awareness as background self', what we are talking about is not merely refuting a mental construct of awareness on a mental/intellect level, but rather through direct realization we discover that 'Awareness' is really just imputation on self-luminous reflection. When we see through the delusion of Awareness as some substantial substratum, we directly taste the powerful Presence as phenomenal manifestation. We are no longer mistaking Awareness with a 'ghost' (an image of a changeless/independent/unseen/unmanifest source and substratum or background) - nothing hidden, fully manifest. There is an actual release from being a background Self and an actual gapless luminous taste of transience/manifestation, and it is wonderful.
The mere dissolving of a mental construct without that direct taste, direct touch, direct realization is what Thusness calls "fake vipassana" vs "true vipassana". The difference is crucial and extends to other forms of deconstruction. Hopefully John Tan can elaborate on it.
June 14 at 6:54pm · Edited · Like · 4
Soh "Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity, in fact it is to hv total, uncontrieved, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments...therefore no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images."
June 14 at 7:05pm · Edited · Like · 3
Soh In order to realize secondfold, one must have this direct taste of anatta as basis, then look into dependent origination and non-arising: https://www.facebook.com/notes/soh-wei-yu/the-movie-of-isness/10153753749825226
The Movie of Isness
In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight t... See More
By: Soh
June 14 at 7:10pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh On the contrary, in my experience and many others here, both nature of mind and the 12 links of afflictive dependent origination can be directly realized. I see it as equally important and nothing to do with intellect.
June 14 at 10:40pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh In fact hours ago in a private conversation between our admins, someone said something that really nailed it:
"In fact seeing this is the enlightened view of DO of kleshas, more imp than the direct apprehension of clarity. Many neglect this karmic chain, the "action" and attempt to sweep this under the carpet in the name of the higher view of non-dual awareness, it is a grave mistake. Seeing this action, this karmic chain of DO is the enlightenment view and the beginning path freedom."
June 14 at 10:42pm · Like · 4
Tommy McNally Jon, what are you talking about? It appears you've leapt into something which is linked to another series of conversations and assumed you know best. You don't. Nor do I.
June 14 at 10:43pm · Like · 1
Tommy McNally Further to this, there's no need to put the word Dharma in scare quotes. We're discussing the Buddhadharma and the same sort of discourse lies at the heart of, and is supported by, Buddhist logic, so I fail to see the relevance of your contribution here.
June 14 at 10:50pm · Edited · Like · 4
Neony Karby .....and the beat goes on, an the beat goes on..lahdyladidiiih lahdidadidaaah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmn876Vygs
June 15 at 1:00am · Edited · Like
John Tan I was reading Catherine’s post about her friend in emptiness group, I felt deeply sorry to hear about the story…pls help to send some metta to her friend… https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/579123518861690/
………..
Catherine Noyce: Over the course of the last few weeks I asked my friend a question "If you, as you are now, could go back in time and give the 'you' of ten years ago some advice, what would it be" This is what he/she came up with:
Be kinder
Look after your body
Deal with difficult or latent problems - don't ignore them or stuff them down or they will come back to bite you..
………..
I think there are valuable lessons we can learn from the story…and is somehow related to this thread.
“There is no self, self is just a thought.”
I do not deny that it is an insight that helps to relief and release thoughts from engaging too much in their own stories but this is not seeing through and overcoming self/Self in the dharma sense…(imo)
“There is no self, self is this intricate web of dependent arising with ignorance as the cause.”
This is dharma for it expounds dependent origination of Kleshas – the very heart of Buddhism.
Because this web is intricate, powerful, difficult to see and difficult to understand, overcoming self/Self in dharma is no small matter as in simply resting in clarity.
We all want to have simplicity, to take the quickest and most direct path towards liberation but sincerely how many have overcome one’s kelshas that never fail to manifest in all levels of our lives – in all events and situations, in waking, dreaming and sleeping, in bardo, in reading even this fb, in conversations…where and when does this habitual tendency not manifest…
Therefore although it is not advisable to over intellectualized it is also not wise to over simplify matters. There is no clarity of self/Self if one does not see with clarity this web of DO of Kleshas, for self/Self is none other than this intricate web.
The OP written by Kyle imo is not an over intellectualization, what written is a very sincere and pain staking process of investigation into the nature of self/Self. It requires realization of anatta, strong concentration and deep insight into the action chain that is not easy to penetrate – which is the dependent origination of Kleshas -- the heart of Buddhism.
Thanks again Kyle for sharing.
June 15 at 1:59am · Edited · Unlike · 11
Din Robinson I know this is will come across as a gross oversimplification but I agree mostly with what Jon Norris said, it's really a matter of not taking any of this seriously and not feeling the need to "figure it out" but rather just "be what you already are", even though you haven't a clue what that is, because you don't, and never will, and being ok with that, is where it's at for me
June 15 at 2:00am · Edited · Like
Soh This is called 'stuck in stagnant waters'. Usually those stuck in I AM (Witness), or substantial nondualism of One Mind (an all-encompassing space-awareness inseparable with its manifestations) will fall into this problem. Because they see themselves as a transcendent awareness, reified by dualistic and inherent views
As described by Soto Zen priest/teacher Alex Weith:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../zen...
There is no end to the process of awakening, but in Zen Buddhism there are steps and strategies. These introductory posts will explain my position, what I discovered so far, and how it unfolds.
Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure non-dual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten).
The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure non-dual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, **or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year.** (emphasis added by Soh)
This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation.
Awakening to Reality: A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
What a surprise, to find my picture and recent journal entries on your brilliant... See More
June 15 at 2:04am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Soh This is not about figuring things out intellectually, however, investigating and directly realizing anatta and emptiness and propensities and D.O. which leads to release. Those who are blind to karmic propensities and afflicted by 'transcendental blindness' or 'stuck in stagnant waters' will never be free from grasping and suffering and samsara.
June 15 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson it just takes one thought/idea/projection, identified with, to separate heaven and hell
the idea that you actually need to do something, that you need to understand, is the kiss of identification
June 15 at 2:07am · Like
Din Robinson Soh wrote:
"Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, **or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year.** "
this is exactly what I'm talking about, this is taking your thought/idea/projection seriously and identifying with it by what is written above
June 15 at 2:11am · Like
Soh You will need to realize (not intellectually understand) the true nature of mind and phenomena, without which, release can never occur. This is not neo-advaitism which is in self-delusion and ignorance of karmic propensities. 'Awareness' will not save you, nor hiding as some transcendent awareness - those will not release one's delusions and clinging. Nor hiding in no-thought.
Hiding in non-conceptuality is simply clinging to another state trying to suppress one's confusion. It's ultimately useless. It's like someone who sees a rope as a snake, trying to suppress one's thoughts of snake is not an ultimate solution. The real release comes when one realizes rope as rope. Likewise, the only release of sense of self and inherency and clinging comes from deep wisdom into anatta, emptiness, D.O
June 15 at 2:12am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson what i'm talking about is never something you can do, it's the complete undoing of the one who would feel the need to do
June 15 at 2:12am · Like · 1
Din Robinson Soh, I do not identify with anything you just wrote, it's all your own projection of who you think you're talking to, can you see that?
June 15 at 2:14am · Like
Din Robinson I would never try to tell you how to become free, because that would simply reify the belief that you are not free
June 15 at 2:16am · Like
Soh The only undoing is via insight and wisdom, not by hiding in nonconceptuality or samadhi. Thoughtless samadhi are transient states, they are not what liberates, it is wisdom. Thoughtless samadhis are merely temporary suppression of latent ignorance - like what I said about trying to forget snake in rope.
If one practices Advaita then samadhi is all that is necessary after self-realization, the emphasis is samadhi (thoughtless absorption in Self/Pure Awareness) until perfection of samadhi - the most ultimate form of nirvikalpa and sahaja samadhi in which absorption in Self is unbroken (I'm speaking in general - maybe not all Vedantins agree with this view).
On the other hand, in Buddhism it is realization of the viewless view/right view - of anatta, emptiness, D.O., that releases one's bondage. Samadhi still has an important role for liberation but view comes first. (edit: samadhi in Buddhism is meditative compsure however not defined as 'absorption in Self' since we teach and realize no-self/Self)
As Thusness wrote in 2006/2007:
"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. "
June 15 at 2:24am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson emptiness isn't something to be spoken about and understood, it's something to be lived
June 15 at 2:19am · Like
Din Robinson "The only undoing is via insight and wisdom, not by hiding in nonconceptuality or samadhi."
Soh, why do you think you know me, why do you feel the need to help free me?
do you know what "projection" is?
June 15 at 2:21am · Like
Soh Din: I understand people generally don't like unasked advices, however, what I speak is from experience. What works. Also the 'disease of non-conceptuality' that Thusness have talked about - I too have gone through this phase.
June 15 at 2:23am · Edited · Like
Soh Letting go/releasing thought patterns is important, but not the key towards liberating the deeper/subtler bonds of self/Self/inherency.
June 15 at 2:26am · Like
Goose Saver “The face of samsara and nirvana is pure mind.
the face of pure mind is variable,
and the variable ground is spontaneity:
since this variability is not something we can contrieve,
unborn, it is outside time.”
Longchenpa’s Natural Perfection.
Any goal-oriented application is superfluous and mainly an egoistic ambition. Spontaneity is pure being!
June 15 at 2:27am · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti Does anyone here ever do silent retreat?
June 15 at 3:28am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally Anzelle, why do I get the feeling that you're really politely asking people to shut up on here? Hahaha!
June 15 at 3:30am · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Loooooool . . . Ppl are so stuck in their habitual wordy discussions. Sometimes it's just better to listen to the wind
June 15 at 3:31am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally I'm all too guilty of that myself, but totallly, totally knew what you were up to with your last post. Hahaha
June 15 at 3:32am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti I'm busted
June 15 at 3:38am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti The Dakini's are having a wild party on the higher planes laughing at all this stuck male energy, haha.
June 15 at 3:39am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally There's about twenty entirely inappropriate comments I could make, but I'm keeping my trap shut. Hahaha!
June 15 at 3:41am · Like · 2
David Vardy Come on Tommy. Stir the pot. The bottom is about scorched.
June 15 at 3:45am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Goose, Longchenpa also states:
"Some say: 'Cause and effect [karma], compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'
These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
-- rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso
June 15 at 3:52am · Like · 2
Din Robinson "It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause.""
sometimes the cause abandons you!
June 15 at 3:57am · Like · 2
Goose Saver In the Pali Canon, qualities of a Sotapanna are described as:
…those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dharma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
—Alagaddupama Sutta
June 15 at 3:58am · Like · 1
Goose Saver Kyle, "Buddhahood is not realized through virtue--if it could be realized by virtue, natural unconditioned perfection would be a lie." Longchenpa
June 15 at 4:03am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver I spent the early morning re-reading Longchenpa--it is a surrender to the Buddha-dynamic , to the ultimate contemplation with no attachment to our relentless delusions.
June 15 at 4:08am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Ah, that is a description of primordial wisdom. Hence why that section begins with "In the essence there is not cause or effect". This is an explanation of dharmakaya, but that does not contradict the need for the practitioner to uphold correct conduct.
June 15 at 4:12am · Like · 1
Neony Karby
Neony Karby's photo.
June 15 at 4:12am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle What is the difference between samadhi and jhanas then?
June 15 at 4:12am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Samadhi is tranquil abiding and jhanas is wisdom mind.
June 15 at 4:13am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Oh thanks Anzelle
June 15 at 4:14am · Like · 1
Din Robinson love that pic and quote Neony aha, ha, ha...
June 15 at 4:17am · Like
Goose Saver Mapping and comparing meditative states from one tradition onto those of another is tricky and we must be very careful, for example, in Zen there is samadhi and Samadhi!! LOL!
June 15 at 4:22am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle So shamatha, which they have me practicing is the back of hand of vipassana palm , but does this also lead to jhana? I should ask these things I guess but I know the answer I will get is "just practice as instructed" ha ha
June 15 at 4:24am · Edited · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Yes, It sounds like you have a good teacher.
June 15 at 4:25am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes he is very cool
June 15 at 4:28am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Samadhi in Buddhism means an equal or even disposition. Meaning a view of resting in evenness, equanimity etc.
Samadhi in other traditions such as Vedanta for example, means to be merged with what they consider the source to be.
June 15 at 4:29am · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Oh I see
June 15 at 4:29am · Like
Kyle Dixon Loppon Malcolm pointed this out the other week;
Hindu samadhi means 'together' or 'merge' [sam] with the origin [adhi (adi)].
Buddhist samadhi means 'equal' or 'even' [sama] 'attitude', 'disposition' or 'reflection' [dhi].
June 15 at 4:31am · Like
Din Robinson so could samadhi be considered allowing people to hold whatever point of view they do without the need to change their mind or views?
June 15 at 4:32am · Like
Din Robinson let it all be the way it is
June 15 at 4:32am · Like · 1
Goose Saver NO
June 15 at 4:32am · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti I was taught that Samadhi is the reversal of ordinary fixation.
June 15 at 4:33am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle He talks to and treats his students like they are long time friends too, sometimes I forget he is a lama and I'm supposed to bow to him and stuff ha ha. I'll end up waving with a cheesy grin in my face first if I see him outside prayer room. Lol Not like the first monks I met a wat Dhamma in Florida, who were also very nice, but different in disposition
June 15 at 4:33am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Din, Samadhi is a quality of meditation, a quality of one's own view or experience... so it can't really be directed outward and applied to people to holding views without changing their minds.
June 15 at 4:34am · Edited · Like · 1
Goose Saver ?
June 15 at 4:35am · Like
Din Robinson well, the way i see it Kyle, is that my own views are just what they are, and so are other people's, the need to change them is another matter entirely and can go on ad infinitum... so i guess i'm agreeing with you
June 15 at 4:37am · Like
Din Robinson when it comes to our views, i guess the best time to point out the deficiency in someone else's view is if they ask for advice, or if you feel that identification with that view leads to suffering, then you compassionately try to point something out, but, to me, that's a much different energy than the need to be right and make the other person wrong, by insisting your point of view is the correct one
June 15 at 4:42am · Like
Din Robinson it's almost as if you probe together the ramifications of holding that view
June 15 at 4:43am · Like · 1
Goose Saver It doesn't much matter if one wears a red, black, orange, or grey robe as long as it is not tight!!
June 15 at 4:45am · Like
Kyle Dixon It isn't good to fixate and attach to views in a rigid way, but in the context of the teachings there indeed is 'right view' [samyag-d???i].
June 15 at 4:48am · Unlike · 1
Neony Karby I like it tight when I turn the throttle , else the wind drag is too much
June 15 at 4:48am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Such dynamics lead to an over-steer or under-steer,
June 15 at 4:55am · Edited · Like
Soh In Dharma Connection, 'right view' [samyag-d???i] will always be discussed. Right view is the forerunner of the noble path and primary cause of liberation. Incidentally, right view can be directly realized, and is not merely a kind of 'belief' or 'mental position'.
June 15 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 4
Goose Saver Listen to the Mantra, the Great Mysterious Mantra: Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha! Gone, gone, gone, to the other shore: safely passed to that other shore, O Prajna-paramita! So may it be. So who is holding onto “Right View”?
June 15 at 11:30am · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Well you have the version without OM. And most importantly without TAYATHA xD
June 15 at 11:35am · Like
Soh To add on to what I said.. When discussing right view, not everyone will like it. But in DC I think we should openly discuss it. Some times, things have to be said and straightened out even if not everyone will find it pleasing. Ultimately it will only lead to the benefit of others, there is no harm to it.
As Rob Burbea said, "One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words." ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../two-sutras... )
The monks who were ex-practitioners of Samkhya (those who held that Purusha of pure consciousness is the ultimate source or 'root') before ordaining in Buddha's sangha but still held views of their prior practices, were not happy when the Buddha taught the relinquishing of all views of a Source/substratum in his discourse on the root sequence - the very first sutta in the majjhima nikaya which contains 152 suttas (MN1: "Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words."), but eventually after some time through practicing and contemplating with/on right view they all attained arahantship/complete liberation.
Awakening to Reality: Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
June 15 at 11:50am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon Goose, even fully awakened Buddhas are mindful of karma and teach/uphold the importance of right view.
"Who is there to do X" is a neo-advaita thing, not good to import that type of view into the buddhadharma. Plus grasping at such a view is nihilism.
There's never been an individual at any point in time. The individual is a convention attributed to a collection of habitual tendencies and patterns of grasping. So grasping at an idea that there is no self to hold right view is precisely the self that notion is attempting to negate. That is why it is so vital to be mindful of those subtle patterns and cultivate right view. Otherwise affliction proliferates endlessly.
June 15 at 11:47am · Edited · Like · 2
Goose Saver Kyle states: "Goose, even fully awakened Buddhas are mindful of karma and teach/uphold the important d of right view." How do you know that? Once we have "gone to the other shore" why would we carry our raft?
June 15 at 11:50am · Like
Robert Dominik www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/ <- access to insight has a nice collection of short quotes related to the importance of right view.
Right View: samma ditthi
www.accesstoinsight.org
Right View is the first of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the wisdom division of the path.
June 15 at 11:50am · Like · Remove Preview
Robert Dominik Goose Saver you gone to the other shore?
June 15 at 11:51am · Edited · Like
Robert Dominik If not then there is a chance that by casting aside the raft you might drown halfway to the other shore
June 15 at 11:52am · Like
Goose Saver The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). "In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma [dharma] compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." [Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation].
June 15 at 11:57am · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Ok we get it. No need for more quotes. You don't need to hold onto the raft. Ok, we've got this one covered. Just tell me honestly Goose Saver... Are you on the other shore? Have you crossed over?
June 15 at 11:59am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Most of the rest of the sutta is about anatta, or not-self, which is a widely misunderstood teaching. How easily can misunderstanding lead to wrong-headed views! Who crosses?
June 15 at 12:03pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik Who crosses? <- I was expecting this kind of evasive answer.
June 15 at 12:04pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Looooooool . . . . .
June 15 at 12:06pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik But hey - we are free to use relative statements like "I go to a shop", "I'm eating the dinner" etc. So just answer me in plain, honest English... did you utilise the Dharma to its fullest capacity and you have crossed over?
June 15 at 12:07pm · Like
Robert Dominik This has serious implications you know... Either way there is nothing to do from the very beginning - nothing to realise etc... Which renders such discussions pointless and we could just as well be smoking dope, riding skateboards, watching TV or whatever (in such a case Buddha would have better done the same)... Or you simply mean that for you there is nothing more to do with the raft - so you don't need to read the suttas, you don't need to meditate no more, the holy life is fullfiled and that kind of stuff etc. Purely relative question
June 15 at 12:09pm · Edited · Like
Goose Saver The Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. Rigidity has no place in Buddhism simply because it is an intuitive, spontaneous process that reveals itself.
June 15 at 12:14pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Right, so the raft having served its purpose means one has crossed the ocean of sorrow and is a fully awakened Buddha. But even then, the bodhisattva ideal stands and Buddhas share the dharma for the benefit of sentient beings lost in endless cyclic existence.
That is why a Buddha would uphold right view, not that they would have to uphold it, prajñaparamita would be expressed effortlessly through their activity.
June 15 at 12:15pm · Like
Robert Dominik That isn't the answer to the question. I'm not asking about the Dhamma. I'm asking about your experience. You speak about not holding onto the raft so I'm simply asking if you have crossed over Would you say that you grasped?
June 15 at 12:15pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti There's some things you can't answer without breaking samaya. I'm surprised your even asking her that question.
June 15 at 12:20pm · Like
Robert Dominik I'm taking her samaya on me. If she answers me with plain yes or no then I vow to do One Hundred Syllable Mantra in her intention 1000 times. Fair deal no? xD
June 15 at 12:22pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Your only thinking about yourself. What about her samaya?
June 15 at 12:23pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver A fearless bodhisattva does not cling to a dharma, much less to no dharma. The things taught by the Tathagata are inconceivable and inscrutable that is why we practice the prajna paramita—the practice of wisdom and why it is bound to compassion and its arising is bodhichitta.
June 15 at 12:23pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti BTW, you can't take someones samaya upon yourself. Where on earth did you get that idea?
June 15 at 12:24pm · Like
Robert Dominik I was just kidding. I was actually surprised that you had mentioned Samaya. To me it sounded more like you were playing an advocate here I'm just saying how this appears to me I have not crossed yet so I can have a few projections, no? PS: I will still do that mantra 1000 times if I get a yes or no
June 15 at 12:28pm · Edited · Like
Robert Dominik Either way Soh backs his post up by saying that he has directly and experientally realised what he points to by posting about Right View (and it's not just holding, conceptualising or intellectualising). I'm just wondering how people who are into criticising his posts lately respond to that
June 15 at 12:27pm · Edited · Like
Soh The topic of anatta and not-self is something I dealt with in considerable details in my article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
Indeed, it can be easily misunderstood.
Awakening to Reality: Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
robertk:This is an old post from ven. Dhammanando that i likedhttp://www.lioncit... See More
June 15 at 12:28pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon I assumed Robert's question was rhetorical.
June 15 at 12:30pm · Like
Robert Dominik What I'm getting at is that I often see people drifting on their rafts too close to the Neo-Advaita waters (at least in their rhetoric) and they are reluctant to say about their experiental realisations prefering to use Advaita Shuffle "who is there to realise that?", "who needs the raft?" etc. I should add that I see Advaita Shuffle mostly used when dealing with difficult questions or arguments in the discussions.
June 15 at 12:36pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Robert, I suggest you do 1.000 long Vajrasattva mantras even if Goose doesn't answer the question here
June 15 at 12:36pm · Like · 2
Robert Dominik No problemo. Lots of Samaya breaking to make up for (1000 might not be enough). Still I would like to have a honest answer like "yes" or "no". Or at least honest, simple, direct, sensible "I won't asnwer your question"
June 15 at 12:38pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Even enlightened masters say their not enlightened so good luck with that.
June 15 at 12:40pm · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Either way Buddha had no problem with proclaiming his Victory. Nor Longchenpa. On the other hand there are some very humble Masters who prefer to say that they aren't there yet.
June 15 at 12:41pm · Like
Kyle Dixon "Generally speaking, the samayas of empowerments are very strict and difficult to guard. Here I will not share with you too extensively. The main thing is to guard the principle of Karma, cause and effect. This is common practice of greater and lesser, higher and lower vehicles in Buddhism. Nowadays, many people brag about themselves and claim that they are Great Perfection Yogis, and thus look down or ignore karma. Many others also plant seeds of lower rebirth in living beings' mind stream. Anyway, I beg you to guard the principle of Karma, cause and effect, properly and unmistakenly. Adopt what is to be taken up, and discard what is to be abandoned!"
- Yangthang Rinpoche
June 15 at 12:43pm · Like · 3
Robert Dominik Who crosses? Who keeps Samaya? XD
June 15 at 12:45pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver To discuss one’s “realizations” is to argue from a false premise almost like saying: ”I 'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” It is the same fallacy as the variant of the argument from age. I am older and therefore, I know better than you. Variants of the good old rhetorical question or more appropriately, the loaded question, such as "How many realizations have you had or have you crossed over yet?” So the point, you are hammering to make is to hold onto a fixed dharma. Now listen carefully, there is no dharma to hold onto, so let go, surrender, and grasp the meaning of the no dharma and you will understand the dharma.
June 15 at 12:55pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik So the bhumis and so on are total bs?
June 15 at 12:57pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Where on earth are you coming from Robert? Nobody mentioned bhumi's here and if your on a bhumi you can't talk about it without breaking samaya with your Guru.
June 15 at 12:59pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Are you trying to trick her into breaking samaya, haha, such a trickster.
June 15 at 1:00pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik From Poland I know - it's crazy here
June 15 at 1:00pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Backwards bhumi land
June 15 at 1:02pm · Like
Robert Dominik Ok - you're actually right. Knowing your degree of realisation is mostly important for one's own practice. For example I try to post less about the technical aspects of view and meditation because I wouldn't like to confuse others with my misconceptions, harm their progress, create demerit and so on. Still I happen to write useless posts because my Right Speech isn't an example of perfection. Anyway - since this is going nowhere... I'll refrain from posting for now
June 15 at 1:12pm · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Games have winners and losers, but not the dharma. The dharma helps to give us insight and to generate compassion for all sentient beings. When we hold that concept in mind, bodhichitta flourishes and "Right View" is understood and not grasped. That is the big difference.
June 15 at 1:13pm · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti I think you would benefit from practicing pure vision Robert Dominik and I say that sincerely.
June 15 at 1:17pm · Like
Kyle Dixon There's non-conceptual prajña (definitive view) and inferential prajña (provisional view). The inferential view is to be grasped through upaya (skillful means), it is to be held by mind, and does not obstruct the blossoming of the definitive prajña.
That is the big difference.
June 15 at 1:20pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver And then there is "Real mark Prajna" it arises from the fully developed and completely penetrated contemplative Prajna. Real mark Prajna is a complete and perfect understanding of the reality of nature, which is also the final goal to be achieved by all Buddhists.
June 15 at 1:25pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Primordial Wisdom Energy
June 15 at 1:27pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Right, non-conceptual prajña.
June 15 at 1:28pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver So where in non-conceptual prajna would you find "right View?"
June 15 at 1:30pm · Like
Goose Saver Non-conceptual wisdom does not hold onto arbitrary concepts. That is why there is a dharma and there is no dharma.
June 15 at 1:32pm · Like · 2
Goose Saver Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha!
June 15 at 1:34pm · Like · 3
Anzelle Pieretti hahahahaha, the cosmic joke of the universe!!
June 15 at 1:35pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon What do you mean? Non-conceptual prajña is the actualization of right view in its non-conceptual form. It perfects the paramitas. Hence; prajñaparamita.
June 15 at 1:40pm · Like
Kyle Dixon It doesn't matter if non-conceptual wisdom doesn't hold onto concepts, you aren't non-conceptual wisdom. You're Goose Saver. Therefore until you've realized the view and have exhausted your karma, you must uphold correct view and conduct. The fact you would call them 'arbitrary' is frightening.
June 15 at 1:45pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon This is why Dzogchen for example, speaks of losing the conduct in the view which leads to nihilism. Conduct and view have to be balanced perfectly.
Or why Lopon Rinpoche speaks of confusing Dzogchen with the dzogchenpa. The dzogchenpa is not dzogchen, the dzogchenpa possesses knowledge of dzogchen. Dzogchen is complete, self-perfected, free of cause and effect, etc., however the dzogchenpa is not and must attend to right conduct and view perfectly while on the path.
Many people just read translations of Longchenpa speaking from the standpoint of the highest wisdom and they think that applies to them, which is a huge error. Very common that this happens and it is unfortunate.
June 15 at 2:06pm · Edited · Like · 4
Goose Saver Kyle: “Non-conceptual prajña is the actualization of right view in its non-conceptual form.”
Conceptual discernment should not be understood as simply as a process of ordinary rational understanding (cintamyi prajna) but rather as constituting a special kind of meditative wisdom (bhavanamaxi prajna). Awakening is not merely on the basis of non-conceptual concentration but on cultivation, development, and insight. When you hold onto a particular “Right View” you are clinging and grasping at it. The process involves the discrimination of dharmas (dharma-pravicaya). This discrimination involves mindfulness practices (smrtyu pasthana) and specific acts of what might be called perceptual judgment as to the ultimate emptiness of dharmas. Kyle, you cling to the letter of the dharma and do not intuit it from its basis in dependent origination (pratityasamutpada). You are missing the process and calling it nihilism, that is not the case.
June 15 at 2:16pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Why on earth would you think I meant ordinary rational understanding?
June 15 at 2:25pm · Like
Goose Saver Right view has a place in rational understanding so I see you stuck at that level. “Pure mind is the face of the here-and-now.
The nondual actuality of pure pleasure
Takes myriad forms that are utterly formless; timelessly unstructured like the sky, nonreferential, “the one” is incalculable” --Longchenpa.
Rigpa is empty and brilliant but not starched and rigid like a stuffed shirt. But all is in accord.
June 15 at 2:27pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver The Buddha taught three turnings of the wheel--THREE! Surprisingly, the last turning is not nihilistic but highly bound by "all-embracing super matrix" that is beyond conceptualization and has no agenda.
June 15 at 2:39pm · Like · 2
Goose Saver Good night.
June 15 at 2:39pm · Like
Kyle Dixon The inferential right view is a requirement for practitioners. Dzogchen attempts to introduce the aspirant to the definitive nature of mind right from the start. 'If' that view is recognized, then the practitioner has a direct knowledge of their nature, and hence that is 'right view'.
However not everyone has the capacity to recognize dharmata during introduction, so for them an inferential right view is necessary as a provisional supplement.
These quotes you are citing from Longchenpa are the former and not the latter. From the perspective of the definitive view [lta ba] which is the right view, an inferential right view would not be necessary.
Rigpa begins as starched and rigid, for it begins as the mere clarity of mind, and is purified through familiarization with wisdom via recognition and integration.
So no, right view is not limited to rational understanding. A rational understanding is a provisional supplement for those who need it. Those who do not need a provisional right view do not need it because they know the view directly.
June 15 at 2:42pm · Edited · Unlike · 5
Kyle Dixon The concept of the "third turning" is referenced in only a couple sutras, and in those sutras when the second and third turnings are referenced, their descriptions are identical. Therefore your contention that the third turning is somehow different from the second, which is allegedly 'nihilistic' is patently false.
June 15 at 2:48pm · Unlike · 3
Soh Kyle, paste the three turning sutra quote. lol
June 15 at 2:48pm · Like
Kyle Dixon Astus wrote:
"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."
(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition)
So, to sum up the teachings of the three turnings:
1. four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle
2. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation
3. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation
The definitions of the second and third turnings are identical.
The same sutra also answers the question about the nature of the unconditioned.
"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."
(ch 2, p 12)
"While teachers of the middle way, mind only, transcendent wisdom, mantra, and other schools may have their own assertions, the fulfillment of those intentions is the same. There is not a single thing that is not contained within mind."
June 15 at 2:51pm · Unlike · 7
Soh Purfect.
June 15 at 2:51pm · Like · 1
Dean Pistilli What a "thought storm".. wow.
June 15 at 5:21pm · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Sigh
Goose Saver, every time I hear Canadian geese out side my window, I think of you and it makes me smile right now for instance
June 15 at 9:54pm · Edited · Like · 3
Goose Saver Thanks Stuffs Red Turtle. Everyday they teach me more and more about compassion. The four sublime states of mind have been taught by the Buddha: Love or Loving-kindness (metta), Compassion (karuna),
Sympathetic Joy (mudita), and Equanimity (upekkha).
Whatever causes stagnation is here destroyed, what dams up is removed, what obstructs is destroyed. Vanished are the whirls of emotion and the meanderings of intellect. Unhindered goes the calm and majestic stream of consciousness, pure and radiant. Watchful mindfulness (sati) has harmonized the warmth of faith (saddha) with the penetrative keenness of wisdom (pañña); it has balanced strength of will (viriya) with calmness of mind (samadhi); and these five inner faculties (indriya) have grown into inner forces (bala) that cannot be lost again. They cannot be lost because they do not lose themselves any more in the labyrinths of the world (samsara), in the endless diffuseness of life (papañca). These inner forces emanate from the mind and act upon the world, but being guarded by mindfulness, they nowhere bind themselves, and they return unchanged. Love, compassion and sympathetic joy continue to emanate from the mind and act upon the world, but being guarded by equanimity, they cling nowhere, and return unweakened and unsullied….For one who clings, motion exists; but for one who clings not, there is no motion. Where no motion is, there is stillness. Where stillness is, there is no craving. Where no craving is, there is neither coming nor going. Where no coming nor going is, there is neither arising nor passing away. Where neither arising nor passing away is, there is neither this world nor a world beyond, nor a state between. This, verily, is the end of suffering.
(-From The Four Sublime States Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity by Nyanaponika Thera)
June 16 at 12:02am · Edited · Unlike · 8
Goose Saver What Buddha learned he observed in the heart. Compassion is the mind of enlightenment—not some rigid view. In the three turnings of the wheel, the Buddha’s teaching varies in subtlety and depth according to the capacity of listeners. “In order to lead living beings to understand I taught all the different yanas…” (Lankavatara Sutra). Compassion is the “mind of enlightenment” the loving intention, in thought and conduct, of bodhichitta—the great “mind of light” of a Buddha. “The practice of unification of emptiness and compassion is the basis of the path” (Jamgon Kongtrul). Last night and early this morning, the same theme appeared in my mind one that is from the heart. In emptiness there is no balancing of "conduct and view" because there is no conduct or view--everything is rigpa. What don't you guys get? This is such a distortion of the Buddha's teachings. I feel very sad that you appear to be hung up on words.
June 16 at 1:31am · Edited · Like · 2
Neony Karby May the posting of those words help you release the sadness Goose Saver. ((((( )))))
June 16 at 2:35am · Edited · Like · 1
John Ahn Individuals have varying impediments, so different remedies are needed. IME practice becomes misguided if we aim for "how things should be" or some preconceived notion of reality, whether its a "super-matrix" or "dharmata." As much as we use the word "recognize" I find this term off putting. Rather, views and means should be utilized to release obscurations like applying medicine. This is my understanding of non-affirming practice. It means we practice to free suffering by becoming familiar with our blocks and applying views, sadhana, guru, or whatever, not to ascertain a particular way things should be according to what anyone has said.
This all comes down to honesty with oneself and tracing back to individual reasons for taking up spiritual practice. You have to be very honest why you are practicing, and not have a generic reason drawn from other's (like the Buddha lol) language. It's definitely a mistake to believe everyone who practices under the same tradition is actually practicing for the same purpose. We can fool ourselves easily under the disguise of lofty ideals and hide our underlying tendencies.
There are degrees of suffering each person perceives and therefore wants to become free of. If your main suffering is ceaseless mental activity, then when practice reaches a level of mental quietude, then this will be sufficient. If you want a happy life, then attaining daily wisdom and healthy blissful sadhana is going to be just fine. If your main suffering is the fact of mortality, then immortality is the goal. If your main suffering is repeated past lives, liberation from cyclical birth is the aim, etc. Saying "I want to become a Buddha" or "I want realize the truth of reality" is in my opinion usually the attitude of practitioners who are curious, desire a new identity, or try to impose a grand purpose in their lives to cover up hidden obscurations within themselves. Ignorance by itself is never a problem, when one sees that ignorance is suffering then it is seen to be a problem to be remedied.
So, reading this thread, I don't really see a dispute of ideologies, but rather a disagreement on which medicine to apply and for what reason and how to apply it.
June 16 at 3:25am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy Sometimes it's ships passing in the dark. Sometimes it's ships running amok. Sometimes it's ships running a ground near the shore imagining it's another ship.
June 16 at 4:09am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Goose Saver, you're grasping at the ultimate at the expense of the conventional and relative. If you choose to carry that view then by all means do so, however it will not get you far.
Your assertion that there is no conduct or view is nihilism. The system warns against this, if you choose to ignore those warnings then that is of course your right.
Everything I have said is in accord with what the system says. Any so-called distortions you perceive are product of your own misunderstanding.
June 16 at 4:55am · Like
John Ahn Kyle, maybe Goose's way of practicing and reasons for practicing are not synonymous with your own...just sayin'
June 16 at 5:14am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Well, once you dispense with the view and conduct there is no practice, much less a reason for practicing.
June 16 at 5:20am · Unlike · 1
John Ahn I don't think that's true. We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold. I think it's more accurate to look at it this way : we suffer so we enter the dharma. I don't think people enter the dharma just for the sake of practicing dharma.
June 16 at 5:22am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon As elucidated by Longchenpa above, the view she is advocating for parades itself as quite lofty and superior, however it is the most inferior.
If you recall Malcolm recently describing those who insert dharmakaya into the basis, that is what Goose is advocating for. Total deviation.
June 16 at 5:27am · Like
Din Robinson " We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold."
is it possible that the suffering arises from the views and conduct you hold?
what if you let all that go?
what if you could just be (empty), without a single thought or perception to hold on to
June 16 at 5:28am · Like · 1
Din Robinson ultimately, aren't teachings there to make themselves obsolete?
June 16 at 5:29am · Like · 3
David Vardy Deviation from the Dharmakaya? We may be featured running astray, but not from the Dharmakaya......lol
June 16 at 5:32am · Like
John Ahn Hey Din, I guess it depends on which suffering you are trying to remedy. If your suffering is mental proliferation, then yeah, having rigid view and conduct may seem like sufferings themselves as well. But if you are trying to remedy something else, like sufferings of failing to write a nice essay or not being a very good monk, then having polished intellect and conduct would be helpful.
June 16 at 5:37am · Like
John Ahn We make this mistake in thinking everyone is trying to uproot the same depth or type of suffering. So really all these disagreements stem from that I think.
June 16 at 5:39am · Edited · Like
David Vardy There's no harm in posting quotes from Longchempa, whether it be in line or out of line, by anyone or everyone. Who knows who will be affected by them, now or anytime? Defending turf is what we get to do during 'intermission'.
June 16 at 5:41am · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti Wow, totally speechless . . . so many narrow minded Buddhists who don't understand the multiplicity of the teachings . . .
June 16 at 5:47am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Dharmakaya is omniscient wisdom as two-fold emptiness free of obscurations actualized in the condition of the individual.
Inserting dharmakaya into the basis means we are grasping at the view of dharmakaya on the outset, sometimes prior to even recognizing dharmata.
Dharmakaya is the result, if one thinks they have actualized the result and they then proceed to discard the view and conduct then they have compromised everything.
June 16 at 5:50am · Like
Kyle Dixon I don't see how a multiplicity of teachings means one is allowed to simply cherry pick what they like out of a system and throw the rest out.
If adhering to a proper view means I'm narrow minded then I'll happily accept that.
Many of these 'higher' systems are so subtle in their presentations and views that often people misinterpret what they are hearing or reading.
As the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra states, paraphrased; 'in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo there is no basis, path or result, nevertheless a basis, path and result are taught.'
From the standpoint of wisdom which is originally pure and self-perfected there is no basis, path or result. From the standpoint of the practitioner, there is a basis to recognize, a path to traverse, and a result to actualize.
It is essential to understand this paradox properly.
June 16 at 6:30am · Like
Robert Dominik "so many narrow minded Buddhists who don't understand the multiplicity of the teachings" <- What about Pure Vision? XD XD XD
June 16 at 6:33am · Like · 1
Robert Dominik Ok, ok - I'm just lulzing
June 16 at 6:33am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti It is what it is . .
June 16 at 6:35am · Like
Kyle Dixon “...There are some who show they are weary (or fatigued) about practicing something profound (like Dzogchen); they say that all phenomena are primordially liberated; they argue that they (themselves) are naturally liberated, and being carried away by these numerous reasons (or quotes), they do not practice (formally) and thus signs of success do not arise, nor (liberating) experiences. They say they are (already) Buddhas and don’t practice virtues; they are those who don’t give up vices. These are people (advocating) a nihilist view [chad par lta ba rnams]."
- Dampa Deshek
June 16 at 6:38am · Edited · Like · 4
Robert Dominik To relax the conversation a little... I should add that in supposedly in Dzogchen (per Malcolm on DW) it isn't that important whether post-equipose you hava Madhyamaka or Yogacara view because Direct Introduction and working with the transmission takes care of the View while in equipose... But first you need to actually receive DI and then according to your capacity spend a lot of time doing Semdzins, Rushens and maybe even have a retreat to work on Shine/Shamatha from the level of simple fixation. Some people talk about instantly practising Nonmeditation and there being nothing to do (I saw such kind of talk in the Emptiness group today... but who knows lol) but the texts themselves say that people who get that instantly are one in a million. So there is maybe 350-400 such practitioners worldwide at best xD Today Dzogchen seems to be popular among lay practitioners (like me - lazy ass lay practitioner) but the tantras and commentaries hammer down over and over that you need to have regular retreats spanning at leasts weeks if you really want to make even slight progress along the path.
June 16 at 6:38am · Edited · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti I don't see anyone here claiming to be liberated, we should be so lucky. I don't see anything nihilist on this post and was surprised yesterday when it was brought up. I guess were all at different stages of our development so whatever floats your boat is fine . . .
June 16 at 6:41am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Did anyone on this post say to disregard the view and conduct?
June 16 at 6:44am · Like
Neony Karby In a way yes and in a way no Anzelle. If there's a hole in your boat and you use your finger to fill it in order to keep the boat floating, then there isn't much freedom to move about on your ship.
June 16 at 6:46am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti If your mind is free while fixing a hole in the boat what difference would it make?
June 16 at 6:48am · Edited · Like · 1
Neony Karby You'd be stuck with a free mind, as if it was separated from your body. But yes, you can be free even in a jail.
June 16 at 6:54am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Robert, The Dalai Lama goes even further than one in a million, and says there actually hasn't been anyone who has the capacity for instantaneous awakening [cig car ba] in centuries.
June 16 at 7:01am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Anzelle, I interpreted this comment from Goose Saver as stating that view and conduct (and balancing the two) are extraneous:
"In emptiness there is no balancing of 'conduct and view' because there is no conduct or view--everything is rigpa. What don't you guys get? This is such a distortion of the Buddha's teachings. I feel very sad that you appear to be hung up on words."
June 16 at 7:03am · Like
Neony Karby ........maybe someone has been practising for centuries , but to others an incident might look as an instantaneous awakening?
June 16 at 7:05am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon That is sort of the idea with cig car bas. That they were most likely second stage bodhisattvas etc., in a past life (having practiced for numerous past lives) and are simply ripe for a full and effortless actualization of awakening in this life when they encounter the buddhadharma and a teacher who gives them direct introduction.
June 16 at 7:09am · Like
Neony Karby .....so maybe that time has come where we will see multiple instantaneous awakenings . Conventionally speaking, as that is how we have to communicate?
June 16 at 7:12am · Edited · Like
Neony Karby After all, we don't refer to Siddhartha Gautama's teacher's ,,teacher's.....teacher.
June 16 at 7:18am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti I feel her comment is correct "In emptiness there is no balancing of conduct and view . . . the question is what to do to help you get there? Do you see where I'm coming from?
June 16 at 7:18am · Like
Albert Hong I doubt it.
Most people want everything without doing an ounce of actual work.
It is a tremendous amount of work to even meet on even playing field of the momentum of aggression, lust, and ignorance. Then to even counter it completely takes tremendous work.
People don't want to work. People just want their mc donalds enlightenment, which generally is taking the "I AM" thought and just grasping onto it, choking the life from it.
Or maybe weekend workshops on dzogchen or mahamudra or some other esoteric teaching.
Most beings don't qualify to be even called a low end practitioner. They haven't even started. They are too busy masking their materialistic pursuits under the guise of spirituality.
June 16 at 7:20am · Like · 3
Neony Karby I get what you are saying Albert - exept, what is it that you doubt?
June 16 at 7:23am · Like
Albert Hong i am doubting the image of a being who can have instant awakening without any practice. everyone wants to be such unicorn.
but then again its quite possible.
hahaha
June 16 at 7:26am · Like
Kyle Dixon Neony, I'm not so sure if we will see more instantaneous awakenings, it is the kaliyuga after all, the degenerative age.
June 16 at 7:28am · Like
Neony Karby if we keep believing in it Kaliyuga might be here for long
June 16 at 7:29am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Primordial wisdom mind can emanate without ever needing to be caught by samsara to begin with.
June 16 at 7:30am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Anzelle, it's true in emptiness there is no balancing of conduct and view, but only fully awakened Buddhas have a completely unobstructed and perfect knowledge of emptiness.
Beginners need to cultivate right view and learn the right conduct. Those who have recognized primordial wisdom possess perfect right view, however their karma is not yet exhausted so they must tend to correct conduct.
The 'progress' on the path is measured by the gradual pacification of karma and obscurations. So the so-called 'path' is merely a yogi's process of fluctuating between equipoise and post-equipoise. Once karma is completely exhausted, then wisdom is no longer obscured and the cause for the arising of distraction which requires the guidance of correct conduct is pacified.
But that is a 'gradual' process, and the view and conduct are a part of the path from beginning to end. Only Buddhas are free from the need for correct conduct, however even then they exhibit correct conduct for the benefit of beings.
June 16 at 7:42am · Like
Kyle Dixon Primordial wisdom is actually never caught by samsara, hence why it is defined as original purity and natural perfection.
June 16 at 7:44am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti There seems to be a disconnection here Kyle, of coarse only fully awakened Buddha's have that perfect knowledge. It seems were going around in circles trying to say the same thing, no disrespect intended.
June 16 at 7:51am · Like
Neony Karby Primordial wisdom ---------is it not dependent on samsara?
And vice versa?
June 16 at 7:52am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Samsara arises as a result of not recognizing primordial wisdom, which is the three kayas. Primordial wisdom wouldn't be dependent because it never arose to begin with, it is the emptiness of phenomena and is also empty.
June 16 at 7:59am · Like · 1
Neony Karby Sounds like we agree-----from different angles Kyle . And it looks to me like the idea of the Holy Trinity , with the concept 'Primordial wisdom' replaced with the concept 'God'.
And the three other concepts replaced with Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirma?akaya.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:32am · Edited · Like
Neony Karby
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:12am · Like
Neony Karby The Pali Canon states:
In the Aggañña Sutta the Buddha advises Vasettha that whoever has strong, deep rooted, and established belief in the Tathagatha, he can declare that he is the child of Bhagavan, born from the mouth of Dhamma, created from Dhamma, and the heir of Dhamma. Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:40am · Edited · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti The teachings in the Djuom Tesar say the same thing Neony Karby. Wonderful teachings.
June 16 at 8:46am · Like
Kyle Dixon From a Buddhist point of view 'union with brahma' is pointing to the attainment of the highest purity, ultimate purity etc., which is the Buddha mind as emptiness. Most Brahmas are in samsara, but the Tathagata is a Nirvana Brahma which means one's condition is the highest purity. The purity of the Nirvanic condition is to 'become Brahma', not meaning 'Brahman' as the universal source of Vedanta. 'Becoming Brahma' (the manifestation of Brahma) or possessing 'the body of Brahma' means self-actualization of perfection i.e. buddhahood.
And so Buddha says (as you cited Neony):
"Vasettha, all of you, though of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, you should reply: 'We are ascetics, followers of the Sakyan.' He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: 'I am a true son of the Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this designates the Tathagata: 'The Body of Dhamma,' that is 'The Body of Brahma,' or 'Become Dhamma,' that is 'Become Brahma.'"
- Aggañña Sutta
That is why bodhicitta translates to both 'awakened mind' and 'compassion', union with brahma means to become a true brahma?a: to be ethical in both word and deed, kind and compassionate towards all, and posses the highest wisdom.
June 16 at 8:47am · Edited · Like · 3
Neony Karby Indeed ......... and that's what I tried to illustrate from different angles and perspectives. Paradise or nirvana .......equally empty.
Like 'union' with whatever.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 9:02am · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Your right on Neony Karby with the diagrams you posted above. Basically it's all an energetic template on the higher planes no matter what you call it.
June 16 at 9:04am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle You know John Ahn, what you said earlier about being honest with ourselves about why we practice or find ourselves drawn to Dharma , very insightful. I wanted to post that earlier, but didn't get the chance. Good insight.
I had a strange dream and the significance if it just struck me. I cut my wrists on a Dharma book and started to die. A man in the dream told me I was carrying something precious , this book, in the dream, had some kind of special power, and instead of using it the gift I was given, I am killing myself with the Dharma. I had no idea what this meant, but I think I see the symbolism. My reason is suffering in a self conceit way. In other words, I am using my life floatation device incorrectly, and hanging myself with it. Escapism . Non existence infatuation I think it's called , craving non existence, ha which of course is a hindrance
Thank you
June 16 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 3
Goose Saver Yes, Turtle, that is exactly what some do with the dharma--kill themselves with it. LOL! Paradigms, especially those within the dharma are intellectual constructions that, to a great extent for emotional reasons, human beings feel compelled to force upon reality, and which no matter how plausible they may seem, or to what extent you may believe them to faithfully describe reality, necessarily distort what they are meant to interpret. That is why there is a dharma and there is no dharma. The belief in the absolute veracity of syllogisms of the kinds samsara generally holds as valid is a core fetter holding us in samsara, and therefore in itself and by itself the use of words
and syllogisms cannot lead beyond samsara. The Mahayana
Sage Ashvagosha asserted that we have to use words in order to go beyond words.
In Zen and in the original Madhyamaka Prasangika
school of “Thoroughly Nonabiding Madhyamikas” [Skt.,
sarwadharmapratisthanavadin; Tib., rabtu minepar mawaa]), paradox has been used regularly to lead the practitioner’s attempt to understand in terms of delusorily valued concepts to collapse, so that the mind may have the possibility of temporarily collapsing together with the samsara that springs from it. Perhaps a little of this will help.
June 16 at 10:49am · Like · 4
Stuffs RedTurtle Thanks Goose after I look up syllogism in the dictionary might help
But that bit about the paradox, that's very interesting indeed
June 16 at 10:56am · Like · 1
Soh "I don't think that's true. We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold. I think it's more accurate to look at it this way : we suffer so we enter the dharma. I don't think people enter the dharma just for the sake of practicing dharma."
John Ahn you are totally right. We study and practice Dharma to be liberated from samsara, fundamental ignorance, the suffering of afflictions. Many people who practice meditation are absolutely not Buddhadharma practitioners at all. It's like going for yoga, practicing a watered-down asanas for the sake of health and relaxation but nothing to do with the original aims of Yoga which is rooted in the Samkhya - self-realization and absorption in Purusha/true self. Is yoga devoid of a spiritual (vedantic) context useful? Yes of course it is, but it is just a set of mental and physical exercises with benefits on that level, nothing spiritual. (note: of course, Samkhya and Vedanta are different from Buddhism, just using an analogy)
Likewise in Buddhism, when we discuss Buddhism and dharma, which is the purpose of this very group's existence, we must discuss the core of it. We must point out what is the purpose of Dharma. It is not for the kind of watered-downed mindfulness practice (taught even in many non-dharma places), or relaxation meditations. Well, those are fine of course, but they are not even getting near what Buddhadharma is about. Likewise those people who expound Awareness teachings, or skew towards certain aspect of experience - such as non-conceptuality, those are still not getting close to what Buddhadharma is about (though it may be the point of other spiritual systems). (note: not that Awareness teachings are not useful or should be rejected, but Buddhadharma is far from being just that)
Therefore we get to the very core, the very bottom of this. Practitioners of Dharma, or those who claim to practice the Dharma, must be aware of what the Dharma is for. I sincerely do not wish for the true Dharma to be covered up by all the surface benefits and watered-down 'practices' or 'spirituality'. We are here to liberate ourselves from delusion and the suffering of samsara, and what that entails, we should get to the bottom of it
June 16 at 11:22am · Edited · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Soh, when you talk about right view, you are talking about 4 noble truths and their investigation, the investigation of the aggregates and thier impermanence, where they come into being and end etc correct? That without this there can be no actual realization of anatta and the the truth of Dhamma?
June 16 at 11:33am · Unlike · 3
David Vardy So if there was a drug, a panacea to end delusion and the suffering of samsara, you'd take it? Or you're just sold on the Dharma?
June 16 at 11:33am · Like · 2
Soh Yes Stuffs RedTurtle - I'm referring to 4NT/D.O./anatta/emptiness/impermanence/etc. Actually it's all contained in our very moment of experience, they're like facets of a diamond, we just didn't realized it.
June 16 at 11:35am · Like · 5
Soh Kyle Dixon: "From a Buddhist point of view 'union with brahma' is pointing to the attainment of the highest purity, ultimate purity etc., which is the Buddha mind as emptiness."
Actually, union with Brahma as expounded in the suttas is referring to the path of gaining rebirth in the form Brahma planes. It's not even talking about the formless planes, nor is it talking about what Vedanta calls 'Brahman' or 'infinite consciousness'.
Union with Brahma in the pali suttas is about gaining the four immeasurables - the four brahma viharas - loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. When your mind is pervaded with these qualities, which is also related to jhanic qualities, then you have the karmic conditions to be reborn in those Brahma realms - which is a very high devaloka, but still mundane. It is a lower scope of practice, but taught to those who are interested only in a higher birth. (At least, you have conditions there to continue practicing, instead of being reborn in lower realms where there is no chance)
June 16 at 11:41am · Edited · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Me David? If it meant I didn't have to be reborn again, yep.
June 16 at 11:44am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Ah I was referencing nirvana brahma as condition of the Tathagata, as distinct from samsaric brahmas.
June 16 at 11:44am · Unlike · 1
Anzelle Pieretti What a powerful dream you had Stuffs RedTurtle. You might want your Lama to give you the empowerment or transmission for Zhine Tibetan Dream Yoga. I suspect your a natural for this practice.
June 16 at 11:51am · Like · 3
Stuffs RedTurtle Cool I'll see what that's about and take your advice thanks Anzelle I have really strange dreams lol
June 16 at 11:55am · Like · 3
Soh Kyle Dixon
In general, when the suttas talk about 'union with Brahma', it will go on to state that with the breakup of the body one is united with Brahma in the sense of being reborn in the mundane Brahma planes, so it is not Nirvana.
But the sutta being quoted above seems to have a difference context. I took a look into the sutta which was quoted. http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Agganna_Sutta
The beginning of the sutta talks of 'Brahma' in the context of the usual Maha Brahma - that is, the highest form Brahma (misconceived as a creator God) of the 1st jhanic plane, the god being venerated by Brahmins.
However Buddha twisted the meaning later to refer 'Brahma' in the sense of the 'highest' (like, highest caste is brahmin), giving it a unique context in that sutta. He then equated it with Dhamma.
Commentary states: Sv 865: 'Why is the Tathagata "the one whose body is dhamma"? Because, having conceived in his heart the words of the Buddha that make up the Tipitaka, he gave expression to them through speech. So his body, since it consists of dhamma, is dhamma... and precisely because he is one whose body is dhamma he is the one whose body is brahma, for dhamma is called brahma in the sense of what is highest (settha).'
Agganna Sutta
tipitaka.wikia.com
Tipitaka » Sutta Pitaka » Digha Nikaya Agganna Sutta Once the Lord was staying at Savatthi, at...
June 16 at 11:58am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Anzelle Pieretti Me too and I have dreams that come true quite often the next day It's one of my favorite practices
June 16 at 11:57am · Like · 3
Soh "Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest. Why is that? Because, Vasettha, anyone from the four castes who becomes a monk, an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, who has lived the life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and become emancipated through super-knowledge--he is proclaimed supreme by virtue of Dhamma and not of non-Dhamma.
June 16 at 12:00pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Stuffs RedTurtle, may I suggest you keep a journal of your dreams like the one above and date them. You will be amazed years from now looking at their meanings and timelines.
June 16 at 12:10pm · Unlike · 4
Anzelle Pieretti Pay attention to any symbols in your dreams, what colors the symbols are etc. Often times they are teachings in themselves. I didn't know that until I started reading about symbols in Tibetan Buddhism.
June 16 at 12:12pm · Edited · Unlike · 5
Stuffs RedTurtle Cool, I will definitely do that thank you
June 16 at 12:25pm · Like · 2
June 14 · Brisbane
Nice post by Kyle in Emptiness group.
Kyle Dixon Nenad, If you insist that your point of view is somehow the correct treatment of these issues, then yes it may certainly appear as if "this group seems to be too much focused on that type of confusion". However, this group also does not insist that the so-called individual is merely a thought, but rather explores the fact that the illusion of an individual reference point depends on multiple factors.
So while HoM is very happy with simply denying thought, and then identifying with 'this that is', touting that there cannot be multiple factors because "there is only one"... emptiness traditions do not do this. For traditions associated with emptiness inquiry, the illusion of an individual is also created by imputation, but other factors such as habitual patterns of grasping which create the appearance of identification go into the illusion as well.
HoM may state that a belief cannot be held, nor let go of, on the grounds that the individual who would perform such actions is an abstraction which is suggested by thought. However, in the opinion of emptiness traditions; while the alleged identity may be partly a byproduct of imputation, that imputation also becomes interwoven into the fabric of behavior that the illusory entity appears to involve itself with. So in addition to that imputation, there is other conditioning. And the actions predicated upon that conditioning occur habitually.
I bring this up because the very act of 'holding' or grasping is another factor which reifies a subject relating to objects. For the very act of 'holding' presupposes something to be held and a subject to hold it, and that activity in and of itself implies these two. The action or activity literally creates the illusion of a subject-object dichotomy, and if that illusion is not seen for what it is, then the entire process runs away with itself, becoming an intricate and delusional structure of habitual tendencies which are conventionally referred to as a 'self'. Again, there is no self contained therein, within, or apart from that activity, but the delusion surrounding that activity cannot see that in the absence of insight which reveals it to be so.
For example, if we were to say there is only unpleasant emotions and no entity which is feeling those emotions; emptiness would argue that those emotions are still arising due to either accepting or rejecting. The very act of accepting and/or rejecting presupposes something to be accepted or rejected, and the very act itself (along with the presupposition the action is based upon) is precisely what the entity is. The entity cannot be found apart from that action, and ultimately the so-called entity cannot be found within that action either, but under the sway of delusion this is not apparent. That is what the notion of karma truly is: 'action', but it is delusional action which is predicated upon the misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., is valid. So emptiness seeks to penetrate these subtle assumptions, presuppositions, conditioning behaviors and so on by revealing the unreality of the factors they are based upon. It is a very thorough and comprehensive process, which is also very liberating. If done skillfully it utterly exhausts these subtle tendencies and neuroses, and with the pacification of those tendencies, the illusion of the entity which can exist or not exist is also pacified.
HoM of course scoffs at this because in your view you merely negate the thought of an 'I', or the thought of a 'me', thoughts of 'they', 'he', 'she', etc., on the presupposition that what you really are is the faculty of knowing which is inseparable from what is known. So your 'ultimate' (knowing-known) is readily available and quite easy to intuit by dispensing with what you refer to as 'thought-stories' and simply recognizing the inseparability of the knower and known. And that is all well and good, but a completely different view.
So when you make a statement such as 'this group is focused too much on that type of confusion', it is because in your opinion, and in the opinion of HoM, who carry a certain view, such things are not required. And this is due to the nature of the view you seek to engender, which is utterly different from the view of emptiness.
Now, does emptiness ultimately contend that all of the aforementioned delusional actions, dependencies, illusory entities and so on are valid and true? Not at all. But they appear to be for those who are caught up in the throes of that ignorance. In response to that HoM would merely say, "well there is no one to be caught up in anything!" And that is partly true, but not in the sense that HoM means, where thought is merely being objectified by thought. That type of view does not cut through the illusion of entityhood. That is why you see people in HoM who merely state that negative emotions and expressions of that nature simply appear 'to no one', which honestly is just a subtle form of depersonalization it is little more than a form of suppression and repression, where you identify with the knowing and attempt to intuit that "everything is me", "I'm all of this, even the so-called negative stuff which really isn't negative because it's all me and I am it, yet at the same time there is no me".... that type of view is all well and good but it is not an acceptable resolution to the deeply engrained habitual patterns which give rise to the illusion of an individual. The individual still persists in that type of view, it is only transferred onto a new form of itself, in most cases far more fortified than the previous individual.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7
Kyle Dixon In addition to 'action' which is predicated upon the misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., are valid; another aspect of the issue is that those dependencies and relationships themselves, directly arise from that action. Though only apparently. The grasping [action predicated upon delusion] presupposes the grasped [object], however the very act of grasping directly manifests the grasped through implication, the very arising of the grasped [object] implies, and therefore appears to give rise to the grasper [subject] and so on. Each implied factor becomes the cause for (and effect of) each corresponding factor, and the illusory web of factors build exponentially as a result.
At no time within this apparent process do any of these attributes (subjects, objects and so on) actually inherently arise, but they appear to. And becoming taken in by that process, conditioned by it and investing in it, is precisely the occurrences which solidify our experiences as independent and autonomous beings which exist in an environment separate from us, living lives extended in time which will eventually end, and so on.
As familiarization with these afflictive processes build up and solidify, they become more deeply engrained and at a certain point, the myriad pieces of our experiences (which are implied by these processes) are then mistaken to be inherent aspects of an inherent experience. We become conditioned, and we only ever know and relate to the imaginary figments of these processes, so attachment to them arises, aversion to other aspects arise, and as a result of that, the implied aspects of experience are solidified even further. Eventually we are here, as we are, fully entrenched in this intricate and deceitful web.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7
LikeLike ·
James O'Neill, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Tan Jui Horng and 11 others like this.
Soh This is similar to what I wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../early... :
Lastly it is the fetter of ignorance (avijja) that the arahant overcomes -- the Buddha defines ignorance as ignorance of the four noble truths, but the four noble truths is linked all the truths that we discover - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness/suffering, not-self, dependent origination, etc. So if you truly, fully, comprehend the four noble truths, you also overcome the perception of permanence, satisfactoriness, self, independence, inherency, and so forth.
If you see the four noble truths, you clearly see dependent origination in action. You clearly perceive that suffering - the eight kinds of suffering - is rooted in craving, in grasping, in delusion, and you clearly perceive that there is path which leads to the end of that craving, that grasping, that delusion.
So you see dependent origination Directly, not just as an inference, but you see ignorance in action - what does ignorance means? What does karmic propensities mean? Many of us think of karmic propensities and ignorance as being some kind of ghostly, hidden, almost mystical force hiding somewhere and affecting our lives from a hidden 'subconscious' component of consciousness stored away from sight. That is having an inherent view, a self-view of ignorance and karmic propensities. We need to directly See that cause of suffering and that suffering as the total exertion of our experience in seamless dependencies.
As Thusness say, having the view of afflicted dependent origination is having the enlightened view. The enlightened view does not conceive of a sufferer, suffering does not come from a self. How does it arise? Based on conditions - delusion, grasping, craving.
The totality of our experience is being shaped moment by moment by our delusions (either that, or by wisdom), by our sense of self, and with it all kinds of grasping and craving and afflictions. Taste it, see it for yourself, what is it like? See that grasping in action, see that becoming in action, see the birth of suffering. Only when you see suffering and the cause of suffering, only then can you realize the path and the end of that suffering. (Otherwise you become some neo-advaitins that say the path is not necessary)
And the moment you perceive the nature of that - that every phenomena is dependently arising, is empty of a self, is empty of inherent existence, at that moment, by realizing the four noble truths you realize dependent origination and you realize emptiness. And with that, you attain liberation. That is how overcoming the ignorance of the four noble truths is so crucial. From a view that a Subject interacts with an Object, to a view of seamless process of dependencies without self/Self, and furthermore clarity into the workings of delusion, grasping, craving I-making and suffering.
Awakening to Reality: Early Buddhism's Model of Awakening
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
June 14 at 12:56pm · Like · 8 · Remove Preview
David Vardy What's liberated is a kind of self talk which is reiterated and circular, in effect presuming all along that there's someone who needs to be liberated. Its absence reveals no such animal whether it happens in a moment or virtually continuous.
June 14 at 1:40pm · Like
Soh In a sense yes, but the sense of self is not merely mental narratives or a voice happening in the head, they seem to be totally real - albeit fictitious - it's like a hypnogogic state where what you think becomes what you see and hear, except this time it's the fiction of self being created into apparent reality and becomes exerted in all states of passion, aggression and delusion pertaining to pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations/experiences. This is the 12 links in action. That is the total exertion of karmic propensities. Just like the sense of background I AM/Eternal Witness is the total exertion of karmic propensities, shaping into your apparent reality. It does not appear as merely a narrative but it appears as your reality, and that is what karmic propensities is - literally a kind of spell.
June 14 at 2:00pm · Edited · Like · 5
David Vardy No doubt, but the fiction itself is thought based. The sheer speed of it is not unlike a rapidly spun web in which we 'find ourselves' wrapped up in; its fragility based on the fact it can stop right in its tracks, and its strength the fact that is doesn't rest.
June 14 at 2:02pm · Unlike · 2
Din Robinson the whole idea is to see what Soh is talking about in his last post, see it as it's happening in your own life, it useless to just talk about it, see it as it's happening, be aware of it rather than totally identified with it
June 14 at 3:27pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh One can be aware of the tendencies and at the same time unable to release them. On the other hand, if one becomes aware of it from a perspective of being a detached observer leading towards dissociation, then it in fact strengthens the karmic propensities - the sense of subject-object duality. Under the spell of dualistic tendencies, one conceives of practice as a process of dissociation, and abiding as a sense of witnessing awareness. This in fact strengthens karmic propensities instead of releasing them. By being so called 'aware' while holding onto the sense of subjectified Awareness, one is being blind to the very propensities in action itself.
The only way to resolve them is by deepening both wisdom/insight and meditative composure. In terms of wisdom, deep insight into emptiness of self and awareness first (seeing there is absolutely no one, no observer, no agent, including a conceived 'awareness' behind experience and thus in seeing only the seen no seer, in hearing just sound, etc, not as a state but as an insight into no-self), then the emptiness and non-arising of phenomena.
June 14 at 3:39pm · Edited · Like · 8
Soh For one who has gone deeply into 'Awareness teachings', the only way of initial entry into the emptiness of self is to investigate and see through any delusions of a subjective Awareness having its own essence, changeless, independent, etc. This is because there is deep reification and identification to 'Awareness'. The initial entry to emptiness of self in such a case would be to realize that 'awareness' is only ever a convention - like 'weather' - for the direct experience of manifestation - sensation of breeze blowing, shapes and colours that we call 'cloud', and in the case of 'awareness' - in seeing only the seen no seer, in hearing only sound no hearer, etc - awareness is only ever self-aware manifestation, not an agent nor a container for which things arise/subside. And realizing this is only the initial insight into firstfold emptiness, there is secondfold emptiness.
June 14 at 3:42pm · Edited · Like · 7
Din Robinson "This is because there is deep reification and identification to 'Awareness'."
yes, this is a good reminder, nothing to hold onto at all, and no one who needs to do it, there can't be complete freedom if there's a possibility of not being free
what is secondfold emptiness?
June 14 at 3:59pm · Like · 1
Din Robinson "One can be aware of the tendencies and at the same time unable to release them."
in my own experience, seeing them IS release from them, even though the tendencies continue, for who could this be a problem?
it's like having a problem if the wind keeps blowing...
June 14 at 4:01pm · Like
Soh There is a difference between deconstructing a construct on mind/intellectual level, and the deconstructing leading to direct realization and direct taste. This is what is crucial for anatta.
For example when we say 'do not grasp onto an image of awareness', or 'there is no awareness as background self', what we are talking about is not merely refuting a mental construct of awareness on a mental/intellect level, but rather through direct realization we discover that 'Awareness' is really just imputation on self-luminous reflection. When we see through the delusion of Awareness as some substantial substratum, we directly taste the powerful Presence as phenomenal manifestation. We are no longer mistaking Awareness with a 'ghost' (an image of a changeless/independent/unseen/unmanifest source and substratum or background) - nothing hidden, fully manifest. There is an actual release from being a background Self and an actual gapless luminous taste of transience/manifestation, and it is wonderful.
The mere dissolving of a mental construct without that direct taste, direct touch, direct realization is what Thusness calls "fake vipassana" vs "true vipassana". The difference is crucial and extends to other forms of deconstruction. Hopefully John Tan can elaborate on it.
June 14 at 6:54pm · Edited · Like · 4
Soh "Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity, in fact it is to hv total, uncontrieved, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments...therefore no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images."
June 14 at 7:05pm · Edited · Like · 3
Soh In order to realize secondfold, one must have this direct taste of anatta as basis, then look into dependent origination and non-arising: https://www.facebook.com/notes/soh-wei-yu/the-movie-of-isness/10153753749825226
The Movie of Isness
In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight t... See More
By: Soh
June 14 at 7:10pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh On the contrary, in my experience and many others here, both nature of mind and the 12 links of afflictive dependent origination can be directly realized. I see it as equally important and nothing to do with intellect.
June 14 at 10:40pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh In fact hours ago in a private conversation between our admins, someone said something that really nailed it:
"In fact seeing this is the enlightened view of DO of kleshas, more imp than the direct apprehension of clarity. Many neglect this karmic chain, the "action" and attempt to sweep this under the carpet in the name of the higher view of non-dual awareness, it is a grave mistake. Seeing this action, this karmic chain of DO is the enlightenment view and the beginning path freedom."
June 14 at 10:42pm · Like · 4
Tommy McNally Jon, what are you talking about? It appears you've leapt into something which is linked to another series of conversations and assumed you know best. You don't. Nor do I.
June 14 at 10:43pm · Like · 1
Tommy McNally Further to this, there's no need to put the word Dharma in scare quotes. We're discussing the Buddhadharma and the same sort of discourse lies at the heart of, and is supported by, Buddhist logic, so I fail to see the relevance of your contribution here.
June 14 at 10:50pm · Edited · Like · 4
Neony Karby .....and the beat goes on, an the beat goes on..lahdyladidiiih lahdidadidaaah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmn876Vygs
June 15 at 1:00am · Edited · Like
John Tan I was reading Catherine’s post about her friend in emptiness group, I felt deeply sorry to hear about the story…pls help to send some metta to her friend… https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/579123518861690/
………..
Catherine Noyce: Over the course of the last few weeks I asked my friend a question "If you, as you are now, could go back in time and give the 'you' of ten years ago some advice, what would it be" This is what he/she came up with:
Be kinder
Look after your body
Deal with difficult or latent problems - don't ignore them or stuff them down or they will come back to bite you..
………..
I think there are valuable lessons we can learn from the story…and is somehow related to this thread.
“There is no self, self is just a thought.”
I do not deny that it is an insight that helps to relief and release thoughts from engaging too much in their own stories but this is not seeing through and overcoming self/Self in the dharma sense…(imo)
“There is no self, self is this intricate web of dependent arising with ignorance as the cause.”
This is dharma for it expounds dependent origination of Kleshas – the very heart of Buddhism.
Because this web is intricate, powerful, difficult to see and difficult to understand, overcoming self/Self in dharma is no small matter as in simply resting in clarity.
We all want to have simplicity, to take the quickest and most direct path towards liberation but sincerely how many have overcome one’s kelshas that never fail to manifest in all levels of our lives – in all events and situations, in waking, dreaming and sleeping, in bardo, in reading even this fb, in conversations…where and when does this habitual tendency not manifest…
Therefore although it is not advisable to over intellectualized it is also not wise to over simplify matters. There is no clarity of self/Self if one does not see with clarity this web of DO of Kleshas, for self/Self is none other than this intricate web.
The OP written by Kyle imo is not an over intellectualization, what written is a very sincere and pain staking process of investigation into the nature of self/Self. It requires realization of anatta, strong concentration and deep insight into the action chain that is not easy to penetrate – which is the dependent origination of Kleshas -- the heart of Buddhism.
Thanks again Kyle for sharing.
June 15 at 1:59am · Edited · Unlike · 11
Din Robinson I know this is will come across as a gross oversimplification but I agree mostly with what Jon Norris said, it's really a matter of not taking any of this seriously and not feeling the need to "figure it out" but rather just "be what you already are", even though you haven't a clue what that is, because you don't, and never will, and being ok with that, is where it's at for me
June 15 at 2:00am · Edited · Like
Soh This is called 'stuck in stagnant waters'. Usually those stuck in I AM (Witness), or substantial nondualism of One Mind (an all-encompassing space-awareness inseparable with its manifestations) will fall into this problem. Because they see themselves as a transcendent awareness, reified by dualistic and inherent views
As described by Soto Zen priest/teacher Alex Weith:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../zen...
There is no end to the process of awakening, but in Zen Buddhism there are steps and strategies. These introductory posts will explain my position, what I discovered so far, and how it unfolds.
Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure non-dual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten).
The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure non-dual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, **or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year.** (emphasis added by Soh)
This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation.
Awakening to Reality: A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
What a surprise, to find my picture and recent journal entries on your brilliant... See More
June 15 at 2:04am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Soh This is not about figuring things out intellectually, however, investigating and directly realizing anatta and emptiness and propensities and D.O. which leads to release. Those who are blind to karmic propensities and afflicted by 'transcendental blindness' or 'stuck in stagnant waters' will never be free from grasping and suffering and samsara.
June 15 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson it just takes one thought/idea/projection, identified with, to separate heaven and hell
the idea that you actually need to do something, that you need to understand, is the kiss of identification
June 15 at 2:07am · Like
Din Robinson Soh wrote:
"Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, **or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year.** "
this is exactly what I'm talking about, this is taking your thought/idea/projection seriously and identifying with it by what is written above
June 15 at 2:11am · Like
Soh You will need to realize (not intellectually understand) the true nature of mind and phenomena, without which, release can never occur. This is not neo-advaitism which is in self-delusion and ignorance of karmic propensities. 'Awareness' will not save you, nor hiding as some transcendent awareness - those will not release one's delusions and clinging. Nor hiding in no-thought.
Hiding in non-conceptuality is simply clinging to another state trying to suppress one's confusion. It's ultimately useless. It's like someone who sees a rope as a snake, trying to suppress one's thoughts of snake is not an ultimate solution. The real release comes when one realizes rope as rope. Likewise, the only release of sense of self and inherency and clinging comes from deep wisdom into anatta, emptiness, D.O
June 15 at 2:12am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson what i'm talking about is never something you can do, it's the complete undoing of the one who would feel the need to do
June 15 at 2:12am · Like · 1
Din Robinson Soh, I do not identify with anything you just wrote, it's all your own projection of who you think you're talking to, can you see that?
June 15 at 2:14am · Like
Din Robinson I would never try to tell you how to become free, because that would simply reify the belief that you are not free
June 15 at 2:16am · Like
Soh The only undoing is via insight and wisdom, not by hiding in nonconceptuality or samadhi. Thoughtless samadhi are transient states, they are not what liberates, it is wisdom. Thoughtless samadhis are merely temporary suppression of latent ignorance - like what I said about trying to forget snake in rope.
If one practices Advaita then samadhi is all that is necessary after self-realization, the emphasis is samadhi (thoughtless absorption in Self/Pure Awareness) until perfection of samadhi - the most ultimate form of nirvikalpa and sahaja samadhi in which absorption in Self is unbroken (I'm speaking in general - maybe not all Vedantins agree with this view).
On the other hand, in Buddhism it is realization of the viewless view/right view - of anatta, emptiness, D.O., that releases one's bondage. Samadhi still has an important role for liberation but view comes first. (edit: samadhi in Buddhism is meditative compsure however not defined as 'absorption in Self' since we teach and realize no-self/Self)
As Thusness wrote in 2006/2007:
"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. "
June 15 at 2:24am · Edited · Like · 2
Din Robinson emptiness isn't something to be spoken about and understood, it's something to be lived
June 15 at 2:19am · Like
Din Robinson "The only undoing is via insight and wisdom, not by hiding in nonconceptuality or samadhi."
Soh, why do you think you know me, why do you feel the need to help free me?
do you know what "projection" is?
June 15 at 2:21am · Like
Soh Din: I understand people generally don't like unasked advices, however, what I speak is from experience. What works. Also the 'disease of non-conceptuality' that Thusness have talked about - I too have gone through this phase.
June 15 at 2:23am · Edited · Like
Soh Letting go/releasing thought patterns is important, but not the key towards liberating the deeper/subtler bonds of self/Self/inherency.
June 15 at 2:26am · Like
Goose Saver “The face of samsara and nirvana is pure mind.
the face of pure mind is variable,
and the variable ground is spontaneity:
since this variability is not something we can contrieve,
unborn, it is outside time.”
Longchenpa’s Natural Perfection.
Any goal-oriented application is superfluous and mainly an egoistic ambition. Spontaneity is pure being!
June 15 at 2:27am · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti Does anyone here ever do silent retreat?
June 15 at 3:28am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally Anzelle, why do I get the feeling that you're really politely asking people to shut up on here? Hahaha!
June 15 at 3:30am · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Loooooool . . . Ppl are so stuck in their habitual wordy discussions. Sometimes it's just better to listen to the wind
June 15 at 3:31am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally I'm all too guilty of that myself, but totallly, totally knew what you were up to with your last post. Hahaha
June 15 at 3:32am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti I'm busted
June 15 at 3:38am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti The Dakini's are having a wild party on the higher planes laughing at all this stuck male energy, haha.
June 15 at 3:39am · Like · 1
Tommy McNally There's about twenty entirely inappropriate comments I could make, but I'm keeping my trap shut. Hahaha!
June 15 at 3:41am · Like · 2
David Vardy Come on Tommy. Stir the pot. The bottom is about scorched.
June 15 at 3:45am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Goose, Longchenpa also states:
"Some say: 'Cause and effect [karma], compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'
These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
-- rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso
June 15 at 3:52am · Like · 2
Din Robinson "It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause.""
sometimes the cause abandons you!
June 15 at 3:57am · Like · 2
Goose Saver In the Pali Canon, qualities of a Sotapanna are described as:
…those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dharma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
—Alagaddupama Sutta
June 15 at 3:58am · Like · 1
Goose Saver Kyle, "Buddhahood is not realized through virtue--if it could be realized by virtue, natural unconditioned perfection would be a lie." Longchenpa
June 15 at 4:03am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver I spent the early morning re-reading Longchenpa--it is a surrender to the Buddha-dynamic , to the ultimate contemplation with no attachment to our relentless delusions.
June 15 at 4:08am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Ah, that is a description of primordial wisdom. Hence why that section begins with "In the essence there is not cause or effect". This is an explanation of dharmakaya, but that does not contradict the need for the practitioner to uphold correct conduct.
June 15 at 4:12am · Like · 1
Neony Karby
Neony Karby's photo.
June 15 at 4:12am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle What is the difference between samadhi and jhanas then?
June 15 at 4:12am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Samadhi is tranquil abiding and jhanas is wisdom mind.
June 15 at 4:13am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Oh thanks Anzelle
June 15 at 4:14am · Like · 1
Din Robinson love that pic and quote Neony aha, ha, ha...
June 15 at 4:17am · Like
Goose Saver Mapping and comparing meditative states from one tradition onto those of another is tricky and we must be very careful, for example, in Zen there is samadhi and Samadhi!! LOL!
June 15 at 4:22am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle So shamatha, which they have me practicing is the back of hand of vipassana palm , but does this also lead to jhana? I should ask these things I guess but I know the answer I will get is "just practice as instructed" ha ha
June 15 at 4:24am · Edited · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Yes, It sounds like you have a good teacher.
June 15 at 4:25am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes he is very cool
June 15 at 4:28am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Samadhi in Buddhism means an equal or even disposition. Meaning a view of resting in evenness, equanimity etc.
Samadhi in other traditions such as Vedanta for example, means to be merged with what they consider the source to be.
June 15 at 4:29am · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Oh I see
June 15 at 4:29am · Like
Kyle Dixon Loppon Malcolm pointed this out the other week;
Hindu samadhi means 'together' or 'merge' [sam] with the origin [adhi (adi)].
Buddhist samadhi means 'equal' or 'even' [sama] 'attitude', 'disposition' or 'reflection' [dhi].
June 15 at 4:31am · Like
Din Robinson so could samadhi be considered allowing people to hold whatever point of view they do without the need to change their mind or views?
June 15 at 4:32am · Like
Din Robinson let it all be the way it is
June 15 at 4:32am · Like · 1
Goose Saver NO
June 15 at 4:32am · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti I was taught that Samadhi is the reversal of ordinary fixation.
June 15 at 4:33am · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle He talks to and treats his students like they are long time friends too, sometimes I forget he is a lama and I'm supposed to bow to him and stuff ha ha. I'll end up waving with a cheesy grin in my face first if I see him outside prayer room. Lol Not like the first monks I met a wat Dhamma in Florida, who were also very nice, but different in disposition
June 15 at 4:33am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Din, Samadhi is a quality of meditation, a quality of one's own view or experience... so it can't really be directed outward and applied to people to holding views without changing their minds.
June 15 at 4:34am · Edited · Like · 1
Goose Saver ?
June 15 at 4:35am · Like
Din Robinson well, the way i see it Kyle, is that my own views are just what they are, and so are other people's, the need to change them is another matter entirely and can go on ad infinitum... so i guess i'm agreeing with you
June 15 at 4:37am · Like
Din Robinson when it comes to our views, i guess the best time to point out the deficiency in someone else's view is if they ask for advice, or if you feel that identification with that view leads to suffering, then you compassionately try to point something out, but, to me, that's a much different energy than the need to be right and make the other person wrong, by insisting your point of view is the correct one
June 15 at 4:42am · Like
Din Robinson it's almost as if you probe together the ramifications of holding that view
June 15 at 4:43am · Like · 1
Goose Saver It doesn't much matter if one wears a red, black, orange, or grey robe as long as it is not tight!!
June 15 at 4:45am · Like
Kyle Dixon It isn't good to fixate and attach to views in a rigid way, but in the context of the teachings there indeed is 'right view' [samyag-d???i].
June 15 at 4:48am · Unlike · 1
Neony Karby I like it tight when I turn the throttle , else the wind drag is too much
June 15 at 4:48am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Such dynamics lead to an over-steer or under-steer,
June 15 at 4:55am · Edited · Like
Soh In Dharma Connection, 'right view' [samyag-d???i] will always be discussed. Right view is the forerunner of the noble path and primary cause of liberation. Incidentally, right view can be directly realized, and is not merely a kind of 'belief' or 'mental position'.
June 15 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 4
Goose Saver Listen to the Mantra, the Great Mysterious Mantra: Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha! Gone, gone, gone, to the other shore: safely passed to that other shore, O Prajna-paramita! So may it be. So who is holding onto “Right View”?
June 15 at 11:30am · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Well you have the version without OM. And most importantly without TAYATHA xD
June 15 at 11:35am · Like
Soh To add on to what I said.. When discussing right view, not everyone will like it. But in DC I think we should openly discuss it. Some times, things have to be said and straightened out even if not everyone will find it pleasing. Ultimately it will only lead to the benefit of others, there is no harm to it.
As Rob Burbea said, "One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words." ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../two-sutras... )
The monks who were ex-practitioners of Samkhya (those who held that Purusha of pure consciousness is the ultimate source or 'root') before ordaining in Buddha's sangha but still held views of their prior practices, were not happy when the Buddha taught the relinquishing of all views of a Source/substratum in his discourse on the root sequence - the very first sutta in the majjhima nikaya which contains 152 suttas (MN1: "Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words."), but eventually after some time through practicing and contemplating with/on right view they all attained arahantship/complete liberation.
Awakening to Reality: Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
June 15 at 11:50am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon Goose, even fully awakened Buddhas are mindful of karma and teach/uphold the importance of right view.
"Who is there to do X" is a neo-advaita thing, not good to import that type of view into the buddhadharma. Plus grasping at such a view is nihilism.
There's never been an individual at any point in time. The individual is a convention attributed to a collection of habitual tendencies and patterns of grasping. So grasping at an idea that there is no self to hold right view is precisely the self that notion is attempting to negate. That is why it is so vital to be mindful of those subtle patterns and cultivate right view. Otherwise affliction proliferates endlessly.
June 15 at 11:47am · Edited · Like · 2
Goose Saver Kyle states: "Goose, even fully awakened Buddhas are mindful of karma and teach/uphold the important d of right view." How do you know that? Once we have "gone to the other shore" why would we carry our raft?
June 15 at 11:50am · Like
Robert Dominik www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/ <- access to insight has a nice collection of short quotes related to the importance of right view.
Right View: samma ditthi
www.accesstoinsight.org
Right View is the first of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the wisdom division of the path.
June 15 at 11:50am · Like · Remove Preview
Robert Dominik Goose Saver you gone to the other shore?
June 15 at 11:51am · Edited · Like
Robert Dominik If not then there is a chance that by casting aside the raft you might drown halfway to the other shore
June 15 at 11:52am · Like
Goose Saver The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). "In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma [dharma] compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." [Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation].
June 15 at 11:57am · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Ok we get it. No need for more quotes. You don't need to hold onto the raft. Ok, we've got this one covered. Just tell me honestly Goose Saver... Are you on the other shore? Have you crossed over?
June 15 at 11:59am · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Most of the rest of the sutta is about anatta, or not-self, which is a widely misunderstood teaching. How easily can misunderstanding lead to wrong-headed views! Who crosses?
June 15 at 12:03pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik Who crosses? <- I was expecting this kind of evasive answer.
June 15 at 12:04pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Looooooool . . . . .
June 15 at 12:06pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik But hey - we are free to use relative statements like "I go to a shop", "I'm eating the dinner" etc. So just answer me in plain, honest English... did you utilise the Dharma to its fullest capacity and you have crossed over?
June 15 at 12:07pm · Like
Robert Dominik This has serious implications you know... Either way there is nothing to do from the very beginning - nothing to realise etc... Which renders such discussions pointless and we could just as well be smoking dope, riding skateboards, watching TV or whatever (in such a case Buddha would have better done the same)... Or you simply mean that for you there is nothing more to do with the raft - so you don't need to read the suttas, you don't need to meditate no more, the holy life is fullfiled and that kind of stuff etc. Purely relative question
June 15 at 12:09pm · Edited · Like
Goose Saver The Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. Rigidity has no place in Buddhism simply because it is an intuitive, spontaneous process that reveals itself.
June 15 at 12:14pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Right, so the raft having served its purpose means one has crossed the ocean of sorrow and is a fully awakened Buddha. But even then, the bodhisattva ideal stands and Buddhas share the dharma for the benefit of sentient beings lost in endless cyclic existence.
That is why a Buddha would uphold right view, not that they would have to uphold it, prajñaparamita would be expressed effortlessly through their activity.
June 15 at 12:15pm · Like
Robert Dominik That isn't the answer to the question. I'm not asking about the Dhamma. I'm asking about your experience. You speak about not holding onto the raft so I'm simply asking if you have crossed over Would you say that you grasped?
June 15 at 12:15pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti There's some things you can't answer without breaking samaya. I'm surprised your even asking her that question.
June 15 at 12:20pm · Like
Robert Dominik I'm taking her samaya on me. If she answers me with plain yes or no then I vow to do One Hundred Syllable Mantra in her intention 1000 times. Fair deal no? xD
June 15 at 12:22pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Your only thinking about yourself. What about her samaya?
June 15 at 12:23pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver A fearless bodhisattva does not cling to a dharma, much less to no dharma. The things taught by the Tathagata are inconceivable and inscrutable that is why we practice the prajna paramita—the practice of wisdom and why it is bound to compassion and its arising is bodhichitta.
June 15 at 12:23pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti BTW, you can't take someones samaya upon yourself. Where on earth did you get that idea?
June 15 at 12:24pm · Like
Robert Dominik I was just kidding. I was actually surprised that you had mentioned Samaya. To me it sounded more like you were playing an advocate here I'm just saying how this appears to me I have not crossed yet so I can have a few projections, no? PS: I will still do that mantra 1000 times if I get a yes or no
June 15 at 12:28pm · Edited · Like
Robert Dominik Either way Soh backs his post up by saying that he has directly and experientally realised what he points to by posting about Right View (and it's not just holding, conceptualising or intellectualising). I'm just wondering how people who are into criticising his posts lately respond to that
June 15 at 12:27pm · Edited · Like
Soh The topic of anatta and not-self is something I dealt with in considerable details in my article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
Indeed, it can be easily misunderstood.
Awakening to Reality: Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
robertk:This is an old post from ven. Dhammanando that i likedhttp://www.lioncit... See More
June 15 at 12:28pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon I assumed Robert's question was rhetorical.
June 15 at 12:30pm · Like
Robert Dominik What I'm getting at is that I often see people drifting on their rafts too close to the Neo-Advaita waters (at least in their rhetoric) and they are reluctant to say about their experiental realisations prefering to use Advaita Shuffle "who is there to realise that?", "who needs the raft?" etc. I should add that I see Advaita Shuffle mostly used when dealing with difficult questions or arguments in the discussions.
June 15 at 12:36pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Robert, I suggest you do 1.000 long Vajrasattva mantras even if Goose doesn't answer the question here
June 15 at 12:36pm · Like · 2
Robert Dominik No problemo. Lots of Samaya breaking to make up for (1000 might not be enough). Still I would like to have a honest answer like "yes" or "no". Or at least honest, simple, direct, sensible "I won't asnwer your question"
June 15 at 12:38pm · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Even enlightened masters say their not enlightened so good luck with that.
June 15 at 12:40pm · Like · 2
Robert Dominik Either way Buddha had no problem with proclaiming his Victory. Nor Longchenpa. On the other hand there are some very humble Masters who prefer to say that they aren't there yet.
June 15 at 12:41pm · Like
Kyle Dixon "Generally speaking, the samayas of empowerments are very strict and difficult to guard. Here I will not share with you too extensively. The main thing is to guard the principle of Karma, cause and effect. This is common practice of greater and lesser, higher and lower vehicles in Buddhism. Nowadays, many people brag about themselves and claim that they are Great Perfection Yogis, and thus look down or ignore karma. Many others also plant seeds of lower rebirth in living beings' mind stream. Anyway, I beg you to guard the principle of Karma, cause and effect, properly and unmistakenly. Adopt what is to be taken up, and discard what is to be abandoned!"
- Yangthang Rinpoche
June 15 at 12:43pm · Like · 3
Robert Dominik Who crosses? Who keeps Samaya? XD
June 15 at 12:45pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver To discuss one’s “realizations” is to argue from a false premise almost like saying: ”I 'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” It is the same fallacy as the variant of the argument from age. I am older and therefore, I know better than you. Variants of the good old rhetorical question or more appropriately, the loaded question, such as "How many realizations have you had or have you crossed over yet?” So the point, you are hammering to make is to hold onto a fixed dharma. Now listen carefully, there is no dharma to hold onto, so let go, surrender, and grasp the meaning of the no dharma and you will understand the dharma.
June 15 at 12:55pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik So the bhumis and so on are total bs?
June 15 at 12:57pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Where on earth are you coming from Robert? Nobody mentioned bhumi's here and if your on a bhumi you can't talk about it without breaking samaya with your Guru.
June 15 at 12:59pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Are you trying to trick her into breaking samaya, haha, such a trickster.
June 15 at 1:00pm · Like · 1
Robert Dominik From Poland I know - it's crazy here
June 15 at 1:00pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Backwards bhumi land
June 15 at 1:02pm · Like
Robert Dominik Ok - you're actually right. Knowing your degree of realisation is mostly important for one's own practice. For example I try to post less about the technical aspects of view and meditation because I wouldn't like to confuse others with my misconceptions, harm their progress, create demerit and so on. Still I happen to write useless posts because my Right Speech isn't an example of perfection. Anyway - since this is going nowhere... I'll refrain from posting for now
June 15 at 1:12pm · Edited · Like
Goose Saver Games have winners and losers, but not the dharma. The dharma helps to give us insight and to generate compassion for all sentient beings. When we hold that concept in mind, bodhichitta flourishes and "Right View" is understood and not grasped. That is the big difference.
June 15 at 1:13pm · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti I think you would benefit from practicing pure vision Robert Dominik and I say that sincerely.
June 15 at 1:17pm · Like
Kyle Dixon There's non-conceptual prajña (definitive view) and inferential prajña (provisional view). The inferential view is to be grasped through upaya (skillful means), it is to be held by mind, and does not obstruct the blossoming of the definitive prajña.
That is the big difference.
June 15 at 1:20pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver And then there is "Real mark Prajna" it arises from the fully developed and completely penetrated contemplative Prajna. Real mark Prajna is a complete and perfect understanding of the reality of nature, which is also the final goal to be achieved by all Buddhists.
June 15 at 1:25pm · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti Primordial Wisdom Energy
June 15 at 1:27pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Right, non-conceptual prajña.
June 15 at 1:28pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver So where in non-conceptual prajna would you find "right View?"
June 15 at 1:30pm · Like
Goose Saver Non-conceptual wisdom does not hold onto arbitrary concepts. That is why there is a dharma and there is no dharma.
June 15 at 1:32pm · Like · 2
Goose Saver Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha!
June 15 at 1:34pm · Like · 3
Anzelle Pieretti hahahahaha, the cosmic joke of the universe!!
June 15 at 1:35pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon What do you mean? Non-conceptual prajña is the actualization of right view in its non-conceptual form. It perfects the paramitas. Hence; prajñaparamita.
June 15 at 1:40pm · Like
Kyle Dixon It doesn't matter if non-conceptual wisdom doesn't hold onto concepts, you aren't non-conceptual wisdom. You're Goose Saver. Therefore until you've realized the view and have exhausted your karma, you must uphold correct view and conduct. The fact you would call them 'arbitrary' is frightening.
June 15 at 1:45pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon This is why Dzogchen for example, speaks of losing the conduct in the view which leads to nihilism. Conduct and view have to be balanced perfectly.
Or why Lopon Rinpoche speaks of confusing Dzogchen with the dzogchenpa. The dzogchenpa is not dzogchen, the dzogchenpa possesses knowledge of dzogchen. Dzogchen is complete, self-perfected, free of cause and effect, etc., however the dzogchenpa is not and must attend to right conduct and view perfectly while on the path.
Many people just read translations of Longchenpa speaking from the standpoint of the highest wisdom and they think that applies to them, which is a huge error. Very common that this happens and it is unfortunate.
June 15 at 2:06pm · Edited · Like · 4
Goose Saver Kyle: “Non-conceptual prajña is the actualization of right view in its non-conceptual form.”
Conceptual discernment should not be understood as simply as a process of ordinary rational understanding (cintamyi prajna) but rather as constituting a special kind of meditative wisdom (bhavanamaxi prajna). Awakening is not merely on the basis of non-conceptual concentration but on cultivation, development, and insight. When you hold onto a particular “Right View” you are clinging and grasping at it. The process involves the discrimination of dharmas (dharma-pravicaya). This discrimination involves mindfulness practices (smrtyu pasthana) and specific acts of what might be called perceptual judgment as to the ultimate emptiness of dharmas. Kyle, you cling to the letter of the dharma and do not intuit it from its basis in dependent origination (pratityasamutpada). You are missing the process and calling it nihilism, that is not the case.
June 15 at 2:16pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Why on earth would you think I meant ordinary rational understanding?
June 15 at 2:25pm · Like
Goose Saver Right view has a place in rational understanding so I see you stuck at that level. “Pure mind is the face of the here-and-now.
The nondual actuality of pure pleasure
Takes myriad forms that are utterly formless; timelessly unstructured like the sky, nonreferential, “the one” is incalculable” --Longchenpa.
Rigpa is empty and brilliant but not starched and rigid like a stuffed shirt. But all is in accord.
June 15 at 2:27pm · Like · 1
Goose Saver The Buddha taught three turnings of the wheel--THREE! Surprisingly, the last turning is not nihilistic but highly bound by "all-embracing super matrix" that is beyond conceptualization and has no agenda.
June 15 at 2:39pm · Like · 2
Goose Saver Good night.
June 15 at 2:39pm · Like
Kyle Dixon The inferential right view is a requirement for practitioners. Dzogchen attempts to introduce the aspirant to the definitive nature of mind right from the start. 'If' that view is recognized, then the practitioner has a direct knowledge of their nature, and hence that is 'right view'.
However not everyone has the capacity to recognize dharmata during introduction, so for them an inferential right view is necessary as a provisional supplement.
These quotes you are citing from Longchenpa are the former and not the latter. From the perspective of the definitive view [lta ba] which is the right view, an inferential right view would not be necessary.
Rigpa begins as starched and rigid, for it begins as the mere clarity of mind, and is purified through familiarization with wisdom via recognition and integration.
So no, right view is not limited to rational understanding. A rational understanding is a provisional supplement for those who need it. Those who do not need a provisional right view do not need it because they know the view directly.
June 15 at 2:42pm · Edited · Unlike · 5
Kyle Dixon The concept of the "third turning" is referenced in only a couple sutras, and in those sutras when the second and third turnings are referenced, their descriptions are identical. Therefore your contention that the third turning is somehow different from the second, which is allegedly 'nihilistic' is patently false.
June 15 at 2:48pm · Unlike · 3
Soh Kyle, paste the three turning sutra quote. lol
June 15 at 2:48pm · Like
Kyle Dixon Astus wrote:
"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."
(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition)
So, to sum up the teachings of the three turnings:
1. four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle
2. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation
3. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation
The definitions of the second and third turnings are identical.
The same sutra also answers the question about the nature of the unconditioned.
"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."
(ch 2, p 12)
"While teachers of the middle way, mind only, transcendent wisdom, mantra, and other schools may have their own assertions, the fulfillment of those intentions is the same. There is not a single thing that is not contained within mind."
June 15 at 2:51pm · Unlike · 7
Soh Purfect.
June 15 at 2:51pm · Like · 1
Dean Pistilli What a "thought storm".. wow.
June 15 at 5:21pm · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Sigh
Goose Saver, every time I hear Canadian geese out side my window, I think of you and it makes me smile right now for instance
June 15 at 9:54pm · Edited · Like · 3
Goose Saver Thanks Stuffs Red Turtle. Everyday they teach me more and more about compassion. The four sublime states of mind have been taught by the Buddha: Love or Loving-kindness (metta), Compassion (karuna),
Sympathetic Joy (mudita), and Equanimity (upekkha).
Whatever causes stagnation is here destroyed, what dams up is removed, what obstructs is destroyed. Vanished are the whirls of emotion and the meanderings of intellect. Unhindered goes the calm and majestic stream of consciousness, pure and radiant. Watchful mindfulness (sati) has harmonized the warmth of faith (saddha) with the penetrative keenness of wisdom (pañña); it has balanced strength of will (viriya) with calmness of mind (samadhi); and these five inner faculties (indriya) have grown into inner forces (bala) that cannot be lost again. They cannot be lost because they do not lose themselves any more in the labyrinths of the world (samsara), in the endless diffuseness of life (papañca). These inner forces emanate from the mind and act upon the world, but being guarded by mindfulness, they nowhere bind themselves, and they return unchanged. Love, compassion and sympathetic joy continue to emanate from the mind and act upon the world, but being guarded by equanimity, they cling nowhere, and return unweakened and unsullied….For one who clings, motion exists; but for one who clings not, there is no motion. Where no motion is, there is stillness. Where stillness is, there is no craving. Where no craving is, there is neither coming nor going. Where no coming nor going is, there is neither arising nor passing away. Where neither arising nor passing away is, there is neither this world nor a world beyond, nor a state between. This, verily, is the end of suffering.
(-From The Four Sublime States Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity by Nyanaponika Thera)
June 16 at 12:02am · Edited · Unlike · 8
Goose Saver What Buddha learned he observed in the heart. Compassion is the mind of enlightenment—not some rigid view. In the three turnings of the wheel, the Buddha’s teaching varies in subtlety and depth according to the capacity of listeners. “In order to lead living beings to understand I taught all the different yanas…” (Lankavatara Sutra). Compassion is the “mind of enlightenment” the loving intention, in thought and conduct, of bodhichitta—the great “mind of light” of a Buddha. “The practice of unification of emptiness and compassion is the basis of the path” (Jamgon Kongtrul). Last night and early this morning, the same theme appeared in my mind one that is from the heart. In emptiness there is no balancing of "conduct and view" because there is no conduct or view--everything is rigpa. What don't you guys get? This is such a distortion of the Buddha's teachings. I feel very sad that you appear to be hung up on words.
June 16 at 1:31am · Edited · Like · 2
Neony Karby May the posting of those words help you release the sadness Goose Saver. ((((( )))))
June 16 at 2:35am · Edited · Like · 1
John Ahn Individuals have varying impediments, so different remedies are needed. IME practice becomes misguided if we aim for "how things should be" or some preconceived notion of reality, whether its a "super-matrix" or "dharmata." As much as we use the word "recognize" I find this term off putting. Rather, views and means should be utilized to release obscurations like applying medicine. This is my understanding of non-affirming practice. It means we practice to free suffering by becoming familiar with our blocks and applying views, sadhana, guru, or whatever, not to ascertain a particular way things should be according to what anyone has said.
This all comes down to honesty with oneself and tracing back to individual reasons for taking up spiritual practice. You have to be very honest why you are practicing, and not have a generic reason drawn from other's (like the Buddha lol) language. It's definitely a mistake to believe everyone who practices under the same tradition is actually practicing for the same purpose. We can fool ourselves easily under the disguise of lofty ideals and hide our underlying tendencies.
There are degrees of suffering each person perceives and therefore wants to become free of. If your main suffering is ceaseless mental activity, then when practice reaches a level of mental quietude, then this will be sufficient. If you want a happy life, then attaining daily wisdom and healthy blissful sadhana is going to be just fine. If your main suffering is the fact of mortality, then immortality is the goal. If your main suffering is repeated past lives, liberation from cyclical birth is the aim, etc. Saying "I want to become a Buddha" or "I want realize the truth of reality" is in my opinion usually the attitude of practitioners who are curious, desire a new identity, or try to impose a grand purpose in their lives to cover up hidden obscurations within themselves. Ignorance by itself is never a problem, when one sees that ignorance is suffering then it is seen to be a problem to be remedied.
So, reading this thread, I don't really see a dispute of ideologies, but rather a disagreement on which medicine to apply and for what reason and how to apply it.
June 16 at 3:25am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy Sometimes it's ships passing in the dark. Sometimes it's ships running amok. Sometimes it's ships running a ground near the shore imagining it's another ship.
June 16 at 4:09am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Goose Saver, you're grasping at the ultimate at the expense of the conventional and relative. If you choose to carry that view then by all means do so, however it will not get you far.
Your assertion that there is no conduct or view is nihilism. The system warns against this, if you choose to ignore those warnings then that is of course your right.
Everything I have said is in accord with what the system says. Any so-called distortions you perceive are product of your own misunderstanding.
June 16 at 4:55am · Like
John Ahn Kyle, maybe Goose's way of practicing and reasons for practicing are not synonymous with your own...just sayin'
June 16 at 5:14am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Well, once you dispense with the view and conduct there is no practice, much less a reason for practicing.
June 16 at 5:20am · Unlike · 1
John Ahn I don't think that's true. We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold. I think it's more accurate to look at it this way : we suffer so we enter the dharma. I don't think people enter the dharma just for the sake of practicing dharma.
June 16 at 5:22am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon As elucidated by Longchenpa above, the view she is advocating for parades itself as quite lofty and superior, however it is the most inferior.
If you recall Malcolm recently describing those who insert dharmakaya into the basis, that is what Goose is advocating for. Total deviation.
June 16 at 5:27am · Like
Din Robinson " We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold."
is it possible that the suffering arises from the views and conduct you hold?
what if you let all that go?
what if you could just be (empty), without a single thought or perception to hold on to
June 16 at 5:28am · Like · 1
Din Robinson ultimately, aren't teachings there to make themselves obsolete?
June 16 at 5:29am · Like · 3
David Vardy Deviation from the Dharmakaya? We may be featured running astray, but not from the Dharmakaya......lol
June 16 at 5:32am · Like
John Ahn Hey Din, I guess it depends on which suffering you are trying to remedy. If your suffering is mental proliferation, then yeah, having rigid view and conduct may seem like sufferings themselves as well. But if you are trying to remedy something else, like sufferings of failing to write a nice essay or not being a very good monk, then having polished intellect and conduct would be helpful.
June 16 at 5:37am · Like
John Ahn We make this mistake in thinking everyone is trying to uproot the same depth or type of suffering. So really all these disagreements stem from that I think.
June 16 at 5:39am · Edited · Like
David Vardy There's no harm in posting quotes from Longchempa, whether it be in line or out of line, by anyone or everyone. Who knows who will be affected by them, now or anytime? Defending turf is what we get to do during 'intermission'.
June 16 at 5:41am · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti Wow, totally speechless . . . so many narrow minded Buddhists who don't understand the multiplicity of the teachings . . .
June 16 at 5:47am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Dharmakaya is omniscient wisdom as two-fold emptiness free of obscurations actualized in the condition of the individual.
Inserting dharmakaya into the basis means we are grasping at the view of dharmakaya on the outset, sometimes prior to even recognizing dharmata.
Dharmakaya is the result, if one thinks they have actualized the result and they then proceed to discard the view and conduct then they have compromised everything.
June 16 at 5:50am · Like
Kyle Dixon I don't see how a multiplicity of teachings means one is allowed to simply cherry pick what they like out of a system and throw the rest out.
If adhering to a proper view means I'm narrow minded then I'll happily accept that.
Many of these 'higher' systems are so subtle in their presentations and views that often people misinterpret what they are hearing or reading.
As the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra states, paraphrased; 'in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo there is no basis, path or result, nevertheless a basis, path and result are taught.'
From the standpoint of wisdom which is originally pure and self-perfected there is no basis, path or result. From the standpoint of the practitioner, there is a basis to recognize, a path to traverse, and a result to actualize.
It is essential to understand this paradox properly.
June 16 at 6:30am · Like
Robert Dominik "so many narrow minded Buddhists who don't understand the multiplicity of the teachings" <- What about Pure Vision? XD XD XD
June 16 at 6:33am · Like · 1
Robert Dominik Ok, ok - I'm just lulzing
June 16 at 6:33am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti It is what it is . .
June 16 at 6:35am · Like
Kyle Dixon “...There are some who show they are weary (or fatigued) about practicing something profound (like Dzogchen); they say that all phenomena are primordially liberated; they argue that they (themselves) are naturally liberated, and being carried away by these numerous reasons (or quotes), they do not practice (formally) and thus signs of success do not arise, nor (liberating) experiences. They say they are (already) Buddhas and don’t practice virtues; they are those who don’t give up vices. These are people (advocating) a nihilist view [chad par lta ba rnams]."
- Dampa Deshek
June 16 at 6:38am · Edited · Like · 4
Robert Dominik To relax the conversation a little... I should add that in supposedly in Dzogchen (per Malcolm on DW) it isn't that important whether post-equipose you hava Madhyamaka or Yogacara view because Direct Introduction and working with the transmission takes care of the View while in equipose... But first you need to actually receive DI and then according to your capacity spend a lot of time doing Semdzins, Rushens and maybe even have a retreat to work on Shine/Shamatha from the level of simple fixation. Some people talk about instantly practising Nonmeditation and there being nothing to do (I saw such kind of talk in the Emptiness group today... but who knows lol) but the texts themselves say that people who get that instantly are one in a million. So there is maybe 350-400 such practitioners worldwide at best xD Today Dzogchen seems to be popular among lay practitioners (like me - lazy ass lay practitioner) but the tantras and commentaries hammer down over and over that you need to have regular retreats spanning at leasts weeks if you really want to make even slight progress along the path.
June 16 at 6:38am · Edited · Like · 1
Anzelle Pieretti I don't see anyone here claiming to be liberated, we should be so lucky. I don't see anything nihilist on this post and was surprised yesterday when it was brought up. I guess were all at different stages of our development so whatever floats your boat is fine . . .
June 16 at 6:41am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Did anyone on this post say to disregard the view and conduct?
June 16 at 6:44am · Like
Neony Karby In a way yes and in a way no Anzelle. If there's a hole in your boat and you use your finger to fill it in order to keep the boat floating, then there isn't much freedom to move about on your ship.
June 16 at 6:46am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti If your mind is free while fixing a hole in the boat what difference would it make?
June 16 at 6:48am · Edited · Like · 1
Neony Karby You'd be stuck with a free mind, as if it was separated from your body. But yes, you can be free even in a jail.
June 16 at 6:54am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Robert, The Dalai Lama goes even further than one in a million, and says there actually hasn't been anyone who has the capacity for instantaneous awakening [cig car ba] in centuries.
June 16 at 7:01am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Anzelle, I interpreted this comment from Goose Saver as stating that view and conduct (and balancing the two) are extraneous:
"In emptiness there is no balancing of 'conduct and view' because there is no conduct or view--everything is rigpa. What don't you guys get? This is such a distortion of the Buddha's teachings. I feel very sad that you appear to be hung up on words."
June 16 at 7:03am · Like
Neony Karby ........maybe someone has been practising for centuries , but to others an incident might look as an instantaneous awakening?
June 16 at 7:05am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon That is sort of the idea with cig car bas. That they were most likely second stage bodhisattvas etc., in a past life (having practiced for numerous past lives) and are simply ripe for a full and effortless actualization of awakening in this life when they encounter the buddhadharma and a teacher who gives them direct introduction.
June 16 at 7:09am · Like
Neony Karby .....so maybe that time has come where we will see multiple instantaneous awakenings . Conventionally speaking, as that is how we have to communicate?
June 16 at 7:12am · Edited · Like
Neony Karby After all, we don't refer to Siddhartha Gautama's teacher's ,,teacher's.....teacher.
June 16 at 7:18am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti I feel her comment is correct "In emptiness there is no balancing of conduct and view . . . the question is what to do to help you get there? Do you see where I'm coming from?
June 16 at 7:18am · Like
Albert Hong I doubt it.
Most people want everything without doing an ounce of actual work.
It is a tremendous amount of work to even meet on even playing field of the momentum of aggression, lust, and ignorance. Then to even counter it completely takes tremendous work.
People don't want to work. People just want their mc donalds enlightenment, which generally is taking the "I AM" thought and just grasping onto it, choking the life from it.
Or maybe weekend workshops on dzogchen or mahamudra or some other esoteric teaching.
Most beings don't qualify to be even called a low end practitioner. They haven't even started. They are too busy masking their materialistic pursuits under the guise of spirituality.
June 16 at 7:20am · Like · 3
Neony Karby I get what you are saying Albert - exept, what is it that you doubt?
June 16 at 7:23am · Like
Albert Hong i am doubting the image of a being who can have instant awakening without any practice. everyone wants to be such unicorn.
but then again its quite possible.
hahaha
June 16 at 7:26am · Like
Kyle Dixon Neony, I'm not so sure if we will see more instantaneous awakenings, it is the kaliyuga after all, the degenerative age.
June 16 at 7:28am · Like
Neony Karby if we keep believing in it Kaliyuga might be here for long
June 16 at 7:29am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Primordial wisdom mind can emanate without ever needing to be caught by samsara to begin with.
June 16 at 7:30am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Anzelle, it's true in emptiness there is no balancing of conduct and view, but only fully awakened Buddhas have a completely unobstructed and perfect knowledge of emptiness.
Beginners need to cultivate right view and learn the right conduct. Those who have recognized primordial wisdom possess perfect right view, however their karma is not yet exhausted so they must tend to correct conduct.
The 'progress' on the path is measured by the gradual pacification of karma and obscurations. So the so-called 'path' is merely a yogi's process of fluctuating between equipoise and post-equipoise. Once karma is completely exhausted, then wisdom is no longer obscured and the cause for the arising of distraction which requires the guidance of correct conduct is pacified.
But that is a 'gradual' process, and the view and conduct are a part of the path from beginning to end. Only Buddhas are free from the need for correct conduct, however even then they exhibit correct conduct for the benefit of beings.
June 16 at 7:42am · Like
Kyle Dixon Primordial wisdom is actually never caught by samsara, hence why it is defined as original purity and natural perfection.
June 16 at 7:44am · Like
Anzelle Pieretti There seems to be a disconnection here Kyle, of coarse only fully awakened Buddha's have that perfect knowledge. It seems were going around in circles trying to say the same thing, no disrespect intended.
June 16 at 7:51am · Like
Neony Karby Primordial wisdom ---------is it not dependent on samsara?
And vice versa?
June 16 at 7:52am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Samsara arises as a result of not recognizing primordial wisdom, which is the three kayas. Primordial wisdom wouldn't be dependent because it never arose to begin with, it is the emptiness of phenomena and is also empty.
June 16 at 7:59am · Like · 1
Neony Karby Sounds like we agree-----from different angles Kyle . And it looks to me like the idea of the Holy Trinity , with the concept 'Primordial wisdom' replaced with the concept 'God'.
And the three other concepts replaced with Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirma?akaya.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:32am · Edited · Like
Neony Karby
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:12am · Like
Neony Karby The Pali Canon states:
In the Aggañña Sutta the Buddha advises Vasettha that whoever has strong, deep rooted, and established belief in the Tathagatha, he can declare that he is the child of Bhagavan, born from the mouth of Dhamma, created from Dhamma, and the heir of Dhamma. Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 8:40am · Edited · Like · 2
Anzelle Pieretti The teachings in the Djuom Tesar say the same thing Neony Karby. Wonderful teachings.
June 16 at 8:46am · Like
Kyle Dixon From a Buddhist point of view 'union with brahma' is pointing to the attainment of the highest purity, ultimate purity etc., which is the Buddha mind as emptiness. Most Brahmas are in samsara, but the Tathagata is a Nirvana Brahma which means one's condition is the highest purity. The purity of the Nirvanic condition is to 'become Brahma', not meaning 'Brahman' as the universal source of Vedanta. 'Becoming Brahma' (the manifestation of Brahma) or possessing 'the body of Brahma' means self-actualization of perfection i.e. buddhahood.
And so Buddha says (as you cited Neony):
"Vasettha, all of you, though of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, you should reply: 'We are ascetics, followers of the Sakyan.' He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: 'I am a true son of the Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this designates the Tathagata: 'The Body of Dhamma,' that is 'The Body of Brahma,' or 'Become Dhamma,' that is 'Become Brahma.'"
- Aggañña Sutta
That is why bodhicitta translates to both 'awakened mind' and 'compassion', union with brahma means to become a true brahma?a: to be ethical in both word and deed, kind and compassionate towards all, and posses the highest wisdom.
June 16 at 8:47am · Edited · Like · 3
Neony Karby Indeed ......... and that's what I tried to illustrate from different angles and perspectives. Paradise or nirvana .......equally empty.
Like 'union' with whatever.
Neony Karby's photo.
June 16 at 9:02am · Edited · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Your right on Neony Karby with the diagrams you posted above. Basically it's all an energetic template on the higher planes no matter what you call it.
June 16 at 9:04am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle You know John Ahn, what you said earlier about being honest with ourselves about why we practice or find ourselves drawn to Dharma , very insightful. I wanted to post that earlier, but didn't get the chance. Good insight.
I had a strange dream and the significance if it just struck me. I cut my wrists on a Dharma book and started to die. A man in the dream told me I was carrying something precious , this book, in the dream, had some kind of special power, and instead of using it the gift I was given, I am killing myself with the Dharma. I had no idea what this meant, but I think I see the symbolism. My reason is suffering in a self conceit way. In other words, I am using my life floatation device incorrectly, and hanging myself with it. Escapism . Non existence infatuation I think it's called , craving non existence, ha which of course is a hindrance
Thank you
June 16 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 3
Goose Saver Yes, Turtle, that is exactly what some do with the dharma--kill themselves with it. LOL! Paradigms, especially those within the dharma are intellectual constructions that, to a great extent for emotional reasons, human beings feel compelled to force upon reality, and which no matter how plausible they may seem, or to what extent you may believe them to faithfully describe reality, necessarily distort what they are meant to interpret. That is why there is a dharma and there is no dharma. The belief in the absolute veracity of syllogisms of the kinds samsara generally holds as valid is a core fetter holding us in samsara, and therefore in itself and by itself the use of words
and syllogisms cannot lead beyond samsara. The Mahayana
Sage Ashvagosha asserted that we have to use words in order to go beyond words.
In Zen and in the original Madhyamaka Prasangika
school of “Thoroughly Nonabiding Madhyamikas” [Skt.,
sarwadharmapratisthanavadin; Tib., rabtu minepar mawaa]), paradox has been used regularly to lead the practitioner’s attempt to understand in terms of delusorily valued concepts to collapse, so that the mind may have the possibility of temporarily collapsing together with the samsara that springs from it. Perhaps a little of this will help.
June 16 at 10:49am · Like · 4
Stuffs RedTurtle Thanks Goose after I look up syllogism in the dictionary might help
But that bit about the paradox, that's very interesting indeed
June 16 at 10:56am · Like · 1
Soh "I don't think that's true. We study right view and right conduct so that they are remedies for particular sufferings we hold. I think it's more accurate to look at it this way : we suffer so we enter the dharma. I don't think people enter the dharma just for the sake of practicing dharma."
John Ahn you are totally right. We study and practice Dharma to be liberated from samsara, fundamental ignorance, the suffering of afflictions. Many people who practice meditation are absolutely not Buddhadharma practitioners at all. It's like going for yoga, practicing a watered-down asanas for the sake of health and relaxation but nothing to do with the original aims of Yoga which is rooted in the Samkhya - self-realization and absorption in Purusha/true self. Is yoga devoid of a spiritual (vedantic) context useful? Yes of course it is, but it is just a set of mental and physical exercises with benefits on that level, nothing spiritual. (note: of course, Samkhya and Vedanta are different from Buddhism, just using an analogy)
Likewise in Buddhism, when we discuss Buddhism and dharma, which is the purpose of this very group's existence, we must discuss the core of it. We must point out what is the purpose of Dharma. It is not for the kind of watered-downed mindfulness practice (taught even in many non-dharma places), or relaxation meditations. Well, those are fine of course, but they are not even getting near what Buddhadharma is about. Likewise those people who expound Awareness teachings, or skew towards certain aspect of experience - such as non-conceptuality, those are still not getting close to what Buddhadharma is about (though it may be the point of other spiritual systems). (note: not that Awareness teachings are not useful or should be rejected, but Buddhadharma is far from being just that)
Therefore we get to the very core, the very bottom of this. Practitioners of Dharma, or those who claim to practice the Dharma, must be aware of what the Dharma is for. I sincerely do not wish for the true Dharma to be covered up by all the surface benefits and watered-down 'practices' or 'spirituality'. We are here to liberate ourselves from delusion and the suffering of samsara, and what that entails, we should get to the bottom of it
June 16 at 11:22am · Edited · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Soh, when you talk about right view, you are talking about 4 noble truths and their investigation, the investigation of the aggregates and thier impermanence, where they come into being and end etc correct? That without this there can be no actual realization of anatta and the the truth of Dhamma?
June 16 at 11:33am · Unlike · 3
David Vardy So if there was a drug, a panacea to end delusion and the suffering of samsara, you'd take it? Or you're just sold on the Dharma?
June 16 at 11:33am · Like · 2
Soh Yes Stuffs RedTurtle - I'm referring to 4NT/D.O./anatta/emptiness/impermanence/etc. Actually it's all contained in our very moment of experience, they're like facets of a diamond, we just didn't realized it.
June 16 at 11:35am · Like · 5
Soh Kyle Dixon: "From a Buddhist point of view 'union with brahma' is pointing to the attainment of the highest purity, ultimate purity etc., which is the Buddha mind as emptiness."
Actually, union with Brahma as expounded in the suttas is referring to the path of gaining rebirth in the form Brahma planes. It's not even talking about the formless planes, nor is it talking about what Vedanta calls 'Brahman' or 'infinite consciousness'.
Union with Brahma in the pali suttas is about gaining the four immeasurables - the four brahma viharas - loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. When your mind is pervaded with these qualities, which is also related to jhanic qualities, then you have the karmic conditions to be reborn in those Brahma realms - which is a very high devaloka, but still mundane. It is a lower scope of practice, but taught to those who are interested only in a higher birth. (At least, you have conditions there to continue practicing, instead of being reborn in lower realms where there is no chance)
June 16 at 11:41am · Edited · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Me David? If it meant I didn't have to be reborn again, yep.
June 16 at 11:44am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Ah I was referencing nirvana brahma as condition of the Tathagata, as distinct from samsaric brahmas.
June 16 at 11:44am · Unlike · 1
Anzelle Pieretti What a powerful dream you had Stuffs RedTurtle. You might want your Lama to give you the empowerment or transmission for Zhine Tibetan Dream Yoga. I suspect your a natural for this practice.
June 16 at 11:51am · Like · 3
Stuffs RedTurtle Cool I'll see what that's about and take your advice thanks Anzelle I have really strange dreams lol
June 16 at 11:55am · Like · 3
Soh Kyle Dixon
In general, when the suttas talk about 'union with Brahma', it will go on to state that with the breakup of the body one is united with Brahma in the sense of being reborn in the mundane Brahma planes, so it is not Nirvana.
But the sutta being quoted above seems to have a difference context. I took a look into the sutta which was quoted. http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Agganna_Sutta
The beginning of the sutta talks of 'Brahma' in the context of the usual Maha Brahma - that is, the highest form Brahma (misconceived as a creator God) of the 1st jhanic plane, the god being venerated by Brahmins.
However Buddha twisted the meaning later to refer 'Brahma' in the sense of the 'highest' (like, highest caste is brahmin), giving it a unique context in that sutta. He then equated it with Dhamma.
Commentary states: Sv 865: 'Why is the Tathagata "the one whose body is dhamma"? Because, having conceived in his heart the words of the Buddha that make up the Tipitaka, he gave expression to them through speech. So his body, since it consists of dhamma, is dhamma... and precisely because he is one whose body is dhamma he is the one whose body is brahma, for dhamma is called brahma in the sense of what is highest (settha).'
Agganna Sutta
tipitaka.wikia.com
Tipitaka » Sutta Pitaka » Digha Nikaya Agganna Sutta Once the Lord was staying at Savatthi, at...
June 16 at 11:58am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Anzelle Pieretti Me too and I have dreams that come true quite often the next day It's one of my favorite practices
June 16 at 11:57am · Like · 3
Soh "Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest. Why is that? Because, Vasettha, anyone from the four castes who becomes a monk, an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, who has lived the life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and become emancipated through super-knowledge--he is proclaimed supreme by virtue of Dhamma and not of non-Dhamma.
June 16 at 12:00pm · Like
Anzelle Pieretti Stuffs RedTurtle, may I suggest you keep a journal of your dreams like the one above and date them. You will be amazed years from now looking at their meanings and timelines.
June 16 at 12:10pm · Unlike · 4
Anzelle Pieretti Pay attention to any symbols in your dreams, what colors the symbols are etc. Often times they are teachings in themselves. I didn't know that until I started reading about symbols in Tibetan Buddhism.
June 16 at 12:12pm · Edited · Unlike · 5
Stuffs RedTurtle Cool, I will definitely do that thank you
June 16 at 12:25pm · Like · 2
No comments:
Post a Comment