﻿Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"The basis of my practice was mindfulness of the Buddha. I became patient with the state of mind in which no mental objects arise."

Focusing on the Buddha is a mental object. By the way, in the Surangama Sutra it was Guanyin's method that was announced as the best.

"Nembutsu is superior, and other practices are inferior."

If it is superior because of its connection to the infinite virtues of Amitabha, the same could be said about any other buddha who all possess identically infinite virtues and wisdoms. Still, the practitioner of the nenbutsu cannot actually partake the Buddha's attributes, so I fail to see their relevance.

"When you consider that he himself, and a LARGE number of his followers (at least one while remaining illiterate) achieved Nembutsu Samadhi, that says something."

What does it say? That samadhi is a vision of Amitabha and his land. The Contemplation Sutra actually gives instructions for visualising it. However, neither the vision nor the visualisation turns one into a sage (arya).

"True Realization of beings and realms [No. 3] is the ultimate goal of Pure Land practitioners."

Yes, the ultimate goal is buddhahood. Something that is hardly ever attained by ordinary beings, thus the need for birth in the Pure Land.

"The first part of this statement displays (whether intentional or not) a complete and total misunderstanding of recitation"

I don't see how. I don't recognise any difference between what you and I say, that is, that for birth one needs faith, vow and practice.

"The second (bolded) part could lead one to believe that you've completely glossed over my repeated recommendations"

My point is that recitation of the name does not bring about insight. The three minds do not contradict that, nor do I see their relevance here.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
LastLegend said:
In conclusion, meditation methods are actually secondary. Thus, by understanding the message of non-attachment, one is using less effort.

Astus wrote:
If one actually understands emptiness and drops all attachment, that is liberation. While it is possible to do that - that's what Zen normally aims for, directly introducing the nature of mind - often people cannot gain insight because of their strong delusions. That's when all the methods come in. Meditation is first of all to help calm the mind, as it is only once all the habitual inner monologues and disoriented jumping from one subject to another can people attain clarity and focus required for seeing the reality of their present experience. Studying the teachings is a different approach, it already requires a level of clarity and concentration, and then it is meant to generate trust in the Dharma and then reflection on one's views to be exchanged for correct ones. And there might be some individuals who can learn to let go of their attachments simply by realising that nothing lasts. But since practically all human beings know that things eventually decay and die, knowledge of the general impermanence of appearances is hardly ever liberating. In general people are also aware of the benefits of not attaching to this and that, but that is of little help most of the times.

On the other hand, what is hard to accept is that there is nothing at all that one could attach to. It's not "should not attach" but the actual impossibility of any attachment. That is what universal emptiness really means. Even for Buddhists that is not easy to accept, as you can see in numerous topics the regular arguments over whether there is some real self, real consciousness, or any ultimate truth that one can actually hold on to. The debates over methods and the repeated affirmations of the great distance of liberation are also about clinging to something tangible. So while it is easy to claim that all beings have buddha-nature, it rarely ever means that it is readily available right now. That's why we have all the teachings and meditations, just to keep us busy and allow us to remain convinced that not everything is empty yet.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Punya said:
This doesn't seem like non-gradual to me. Wouldn't the non-gradual be complete enlightenment, not just a glimpse?

Astus wrote:
That depends. As there is nothing more to realise than emptiness there is no development in what one learns or achieves.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see it as a natural tendency throughout Buddhist history. There is a fairly simple teaching on the correct view (emptiness) and the practice (non-attachment) that emerges from it. Then it gets theoretically and mythologically complicated. Then again it is reduced to some simple instruction. It is not that people change radically during the centuries, but languages and cultures do, thus the need for newer and newer translations and explanations.

In terms of the actual time it takes to attain liberation, there are stories already in the Nikayas about those who directly understood from a single sentence and those who couldn't reach nirvana even after decades. In my opinion both are extremes and possibly literary elements, although at the same time there are very bright and very dull people.

The reason we almost always see only unenlightened beings is because we don't actually have a way to tell for sure who is what. Maybe some people behave very saintly, some people are really knowledgeable, some people have various impressive abilities, but none of that makes them enlightened unless we are so mesmerised by them.

What I think is a common phenomenon is that some may understand the meaning of emptiness (selflessness, nature of mind, whatever term you like) for a moment or two but then conceptualisation kicks in and it gets confused. So theoretically there could be people who don't fall back into their established thinking patterns, but it is very unlikely. Nevertheless, we could say that those who manage to get an initial glimpse are the sudden learners, while those who need some preliminary training are the gradual ones.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
If the goal is enlightenment in this life, that is not a Pure Land oriented attitude. Therefore, whatever practice one does, it is dedicated to one's own liberation now instead of awakening in Sukhavati. Thus the attainment of birth becomes a secondary matter at best.

http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice/essentials-pure-land/5-practice/four:

"If we were to use Buddha Recitation to discover the Mind-Ground and awaken to our Original Nature, the Pure Land method would be no different from other methods. However, when we rely on Buddha Recitation to seek rebirth in the Pure Land, this method has unique characteristics."

That is:

"What is operative in the terms Holy Path and Pure Land Path is thus the realm where people attain salvation. The Holy Path is the path of the few who attain it in this life and on their own. The Pure Land Path is the path of the many who need the help of Amida Buddha to attain it after death."
( http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHINGS/otherself.html )

Buddha-remembrance combined with Chan can mean two things. Either it is aiming for the Pure Land supported by Chan, or aiming for enlightenment in this life supported by buddha-remembrance. If birth is the goal, then seeing the nature is understood as part of the bodhisattva path. If realisation is the goal, then recitation is understood as a meditation technique. We can see well from Honen's method of selection that there are those who aim for birth using various methods and work on accumulating wisdom and merit. Among them there are those who focus only on Amitabha and those who use other methods, but they equally dedicate merit towards birth in the Pure Land. In other terms, they have faith and vow but take a different stance on practice than those who only recite the name. On the other hand, those who do not have faith and vow may meditate on Amitabha but they will not be born in Sukhavati. As http://www.ymba.org/books/mind-seal-buddhas/explanation-text/main-portion/seeking-rebirth-pure-land:

"If your faith and vows are solid and strong, then even you recite the Buddha-name only ten times, or only once, as you are on the brink of death, you are sure to attain birth in the Pure Land. Without faith and vows, even if you recite the Buddha-name until [you achieve a level of concentration the Zen literature describes as] "wind cannot enter you and rain cannot wet you" and "you stand like a silver wall or and iron wall", you will still not have a way to be born in the Pure Land."

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/yin_kuang.pdf:

"With this method, as long as their Faith and Vows are true and earnest, even those who have committed the Five Grave Offenses or the Ten Evil Acts, may, on the verge of death, when the marks of the hells appear, follow the advice of a good spiritual advisor and recite the Buddha’s name one to ten times. Then, thanks to the compassionate power of Amitabha Buddha, even they will be received and guided to the Pure Land – not to mention those who practice wholesome deeds and do not commit transgressions!"
(p 35)

"Rebirth in the Western Land thus requires, first of all, deep Faith and fervent Vows. Without these conditions, even if you were to cultivate, you could not obtain a response from Amitabha Buddha. You would merely reap the blessings of the human and celestial realms and sow the seeds of liberation in the future. Anyone who fulfills the conditions of Faith and Vows is assured of rebirth in the Pure Land."
(p 37)

As for the idea that recitation itself brings about wisdom, that would mean (1) there is no need for Amitabha's vows and (2) there is no need for the teachings and insight practices. Honen and all the other Pure Land teachers could not have said that they were ordinary deluded people as they had recited the name thousands of times in a single day.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Wouldn't this be a possibility, though, if there is a one-pointed focus ("Buddha recitation samadhi") combined with a sort of opening of oneself to the deeper significance of "Namo Amitabha Buddha"?

Astus wrote:
That combination with opening to a deeper meaning is where insight practice comes in, where one has to learn to see thoughts for what they are instead of just following them. Reciting the name is focusing on a single thought, so it helps in not grasping other concepts. Then reflecting on one's ongoing experience can become easier. That is what the question "Who recites the name?" points at. Once it is clearly understood that appearances are without substance, without a fixed essence to hold on to, that is being enlightened to no-birth, the true nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
From what you write it seems to me your priority is enlightenment in this life. Only repeating the name of Amitabha is not enough for that, but it can be used as something that can assist in seeing the nature of mind. See http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice/essentials-pure-land/5-practice/four and the http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice/essentials-pure-land/5-practice/buddha that describe how realisation can be integrated into buddha-remembrance.

Unlike in Japanese Buddhism (except for the Obaku school), there is no controversy between Chan and Pure Land. I strongly recommend you read http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf2003.%20TP%20Chan%20and%20Pure%20Land.pdf. It can answer many questions you have about Chan and PL.

The source of this problem that Chan and PL are something totally different comes from Japan's Kamakura Buddhism when first Honen started the exclusive nenbutsu movement and then various Zen institutions started to emerge. But if your look into Honen's selection of the single practice, he intentionally excludes interpretations of buddha-remembrance that fall into the category of self-power. It was his invention, his innovation. That's why I find it particularly strange that there are certain people who are happy to mix Shinran's teachings with Zen. But if one looks into Chinese Buddhism "nianfo chan" is the general and most common practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddha-remembrance and Chan has been practised together from the very beginning. Even before Huiyuan (334–416)  and Bodhidharma (5th/6th century) the Pratyutpannasamadhi Sutra (translated to Chinese in 179) taught how one can meet Amitabha in samadhi and at the same time to realise that the whole visualisation is empty. Chan practitioners often aspired to be born in the Pure Land and buddha-remembrance practitioners often cultivated the mind-nature. There were many famous teachers who explained how the two are complementary methods.

Here's a saying, the fourfold summary, attributed to Yongming Yanshou (from "Yung-ming's Syncretism of Pure Land and Ch'an" by Heng-ching Shih in JIABS vol 10 no 1, p 118 ):

"With Ch'an but no Pure Land, nine out of ten people will go astray.
When death comes suddenly, they must accept it in an instant.
With Pure Land but no Ch'an, ten thousand out of ten thousand people will achieve birth [in the Pure Land].
If one can see Amitabha face to face, why worry about not attaining enlightenment?
With both Ch'an and Pure Land, it is like a tiger who has grown horns.
One will be a teacher for mankind in this life, and a Buddhist patriarch in the next.
With neither Ch'an nor Pure Land, it is like falling on an iron bed with bronze posters [i.e., one of the hells].
For endless kalpas one will find nothing to rely on."

Consider the following quotes from The Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations (BDK edition):

"By intoning the ten sacred names, we have intended to assist [the deceased] in entering the Pure Land of Amitābha Buddha."
(from the funeral ritual of the deceased abbot, p 135)

"From three o’clock in the morning until dusk, every sentient being must reflect upon himself with the following prayer: “Even if my life should end at this very moment, may I immediately be reborn in the Pure Land.”"
(from the regulations of daily conduct, p 267)

"It is earnestly wished that Venerable So-and-so regain his health, as he has not lost the various supporting causes for his existence. If, however, it is unavoidable for him to come to the end of his life, may he swiftly realize the goal of rebirth in the Pure Land. Veneration to the Buddhas in the ten directions and the three times."
(from the prayer for ailing practitioners, p 294)

And these from http://www.ymba.org/books/taming-monkey-mind-guide-pure-land-practice:

"To recite the Buddha's name is to recite the Buddha of the Self-Mind; the ears hearing the Buddha's name actually hear the Self-Mind. The sound comes from the Self-Mind and returns to the Self-Mind, turning around and around in a circle. Not even a bit of deluded thought remains, and as a result, all mundane dusts, all deluded realms disappear."
(aspect 28 commentary)

"As the sound of the Self-Mind surrounds you and the light of the Self-Mind shines upon you, the Mind-Nature naturally reveals itself. This True Mind is like a huge, round, bright mirror that nothing can obstruct. The Ten Directions, the Three Periods of Time, ourselves, the Buddhas and sentient beings, the cycle of suffering in the impure world, the lotus seat in the Pure Land - all are but images in the mirror. Thus, to recite aloud is to recite in the light, to recite in the mirror; it is neither the same nor different. This is the ultimate auspicious realm, completely free of the deluded mind. You should strive with all your might to attain it."
(aspect 31)

"Zen is Pure Land because both Zen and Pure Land aim at reaching one-pointedness of mind. Although two expedients are involved, the result is the same. However, Zen is ten times as difficult! "
(aspect 35 commentary)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
Astus wrote:
You may check them yourself (I don't want to overload the thread with long copies):

https://www.scribd.com/doc/39077716/The-Sutra-of-Sitting-Dhyana-Samadhi
http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/meditationsutra.html
http://www.fodian.net/world/0273.html
http://www.buddhisttexts.org/surangama.html
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra22.html

The http://www.fodian.net/world/0277b.html contains a repentance practice that is mirrored in the Platform Sutra's central chapter. The http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html talks about the One Action Samadhi that is referred to in the early Zen texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
LastLegend said:
I can say that in almost all Mahayana Sutras, there is no much emphasis on practicing meditation.

Astus wrote:
Sutras do talk about meditation. There are samadhi sutras like the Surangamasamadhi, Vajrasamadhi, Pratyutpannasamadhi and Samadhiraja Sutra. There are other such texts like the Sutra on the Concentration of Sitting Meditation, the Samantabhadra Meditation Sutra, the Contemplation on Amitayus Sutra, etc. Meditation itself is the fifth paramita, and one of the three trainings of the noble eightfold path is meditation. However, if your look at classical Zen teachings, like those of Bodhidharma, Huineng, Mazu, Linji and others, there is hardly any mention of meditation (on this subject https://eubuddhist.blogspot.com/2011/03/instructions-needed.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Astus, from Zhiyi to Hakuin and modern masters, you must surely know the admonitions about wrong practice and the many who practice wrongly. The masters would not have wasted their breath if it was a trivial matter. Are you sure you're on the right track?

Astus wrote:
It is possible to give names of people who propagated a long and arduous path, and people who talked about an easy and direct entrance. Zhiyi was actually both, who covered gradual and sudden equally. For instance, Dogen travelled to China when he was 23, met Rujing when he was 25 and after two years went back to Japan to start his own school at the age of 28. Then among his first writings, in the http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html, we find: "The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice. It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice-realization of totally culminated enlightenment." And in the http://wwzc.org/sites/default/files/Bendowa-book.pdf: "This is the practise of realization, and so from the beginning practice is the whole body of original Awakening. ...  Practice is always already inseparable from realization. Because practice, even from the beginning, Transmits an endowment of wonderous practice, we fortunately and naturally receive a share of original realization."

While there is a difference between correct and incorrect practice, it is hard to talk about stages in zazen without denying that it is practice-realisation. If there is no simple and easy access to zazen it is no use to anyone. That does not mean there is no effort or understanding.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 6:03 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
Dan74 said:
In Tibetan Buddhism many texts are restricted and I sometimes wonder if the same would be good for Zen because we are liable to misunderstand things or if not misunderstand, misuse. All Zen teachings are aimed at seeing our original nature and attain liberation from delusion. They are not concepts or truths. They are pointers to be utilised and not to be clung to.

Astus wrote:
Zazen is open to all, anyone can practise it. It is nothing difficult either. Complications occur when one loses the correct posture of not grasping thoughts or the lack of thoughts. So, one should simply return to the right view. Then everything is clear and obvious.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
Astus wrote:
Yes, there is awareness and there is acceptance. If by those words what is meant is on the one hand the primal awareness that is inherent in every experience, and on the other acceptance is the basic openness of the boundless consciousness that allows anything and everything to occur and also disappear as experience. It is not a special state to cultivate or discover but the original quality of life as it is. For example, hearing can happen because there is not a single sound that is constantly there, so all sounds can come and go without hindrance. You don't have to force hearing, you don't have to wish it, concentrate on it, there is simply hearing. Same goes for the other five senses. What brings us astray, what creates an abiding awareness is taking a mental image, a thought, as the ideal state we want to identify with. Like thinking of a single voice we want to hear and being agitated by all the other sounds. Again, it doesn't mean that one should not have any intention or direction. It is idealising a present, past or future state and holding to it as the truth, as a self that binds us and clouds our perception.

We can play with how we look at things, what kind of attention we cultivate, and we do that all the time. At the same time, attention is conditioned by our personality and our environment. When we are driven by an idea we forget to reflect on the situation, both inner and outer conditions, and go blindly. When we recognise our idea as an idea, as a mental figment, then we gain the freedom of awareness and see our situation.

"Can it be said also that non-abidance would be a state where you notice distractions? This includes thoughts and emotions - so that you're attention is not pulled away from what you are doing?"

That is just being attentive to one's present state. Non-abidance is just seeing oneself as one is, distracted or not. It does not limit one's mental functions.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
Astus wrote:
Non-abiding awareness is no different from your present experience, just as it is. The mind can be in any state, it does not matter. What matters is the ideology you come up with for your situation, for your actions. It is not that you cannot have thoughts, you cannot theories about any and every thing. Just consider the volumes of teachings by the Buddha and Dharma teachers throughout the ages. Non-abiding awareness is not establishing oneself in any ultimate truth, in any final reality, in any definite self.

Dissatisfaction comes from the conviction that one's present situation should be something different, from hoping for something better and fearing something worse. Underlying that conviction is a set of values and preferences, an ideology of how things should be. Not abiding anywhere is to see that such ideologies are conceptual constructs, mental fabrications without ultimate value or essence.

When one has to do the dishes there are various ways to go about it. Feeling bored, annoyed, motivated or perhaps even elated. All of those feelings can occur depending on one's thoughts about doing the dishes. Then there is the idea that one should do them mindfully. As long as being mindful means the exclusion of feelings and thoughts, concentrating only on the present moment, failure is guaranteed. That is because there is still the concept that one should remain in a specific state, that something should last for ever. However, when one is mindful of whatever thoughts, feelings and sensory inputs come up, there is no wish for a specific state, something to be, something to become, then there is no abiding in an idealised concept.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 31st, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Kwan-um: How to work with a koan?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Number one favourite answer: discuss it with your teacher. But let's put aside that for now.

Phrase investigation (ganhwa) is a great method. If you want some general info, start here: http://koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=3020.

To sit with a gongan simply means "work on it". Working on it is carrying it with you all day long, asking questions, constantly knocking on the gate of no gate (i.e. using thoughts to realise what is beyond thinking). That is, exhausting all the possible answers until you arrive at the point where only a big question mark remains. Then you keep going on with that great doubt. Because great doubt is without conceptualisation but at the same time it is vivid and aware. Then comes a point where you realise for yourself that this whole process is just your own making, that problems and solutions are all just mental games, and once you don't grasp at an idea there is no further complication.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 30th, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Experience itself is change. If there were no change, either it would be constantly experienced or never at all. Because there is change there cannot be any permanent essence, substance, self or true being. Change itself is emptiness, because whatever changes must be empty of self (permanent entity). Change is experience, and experience is awareness. If we are not aware of it, it is not experienced, and if it is not experienced we cannot say there is or is not any change. All change happens because of causes and conditions, that is, because of previous changes, thus past, present and future form a single causally conditioned continuity.

So, based on the above:

"But, are these movements intrinsically empty/void, and thus illusory?"

Movement is necessarily empty. What is it empty of? A permanent essence.

"Or, are stillness and movement one and the same, with movement being intrinsically pure and real? Does the old analogy of the lake with ripples hold true? Are the ripples illusory and to be discarded, or are they one with the lake and share the same substance?"

Stillness is a passing experience, so it is actually movement. There is nothing that could be kept or discarded. Holding on and rejecting both contain the idea of a real thing, an essence, that one should manipulate. The will to manipulate, the desire for control, is the cause of suffering based on the ignorance of the true nature of reality, that is, that everything changes.

"If all suffering, joy, creativity and phenomena arise from conditions, and those conditions arise from movements in the mind, how does mind initiate the movement? If mind is essentially still and pure, how can movement arise?"

Still and pure means not deluded about the nature of reality, thus not grasping and rejecting. That the mind is originally pure and still means that grasping and rejecting comes from the belief that experience is the experience of substantial phenomena. It is not that there was first a pure mind that got contaminated, rather that one should turn one's attention from meddling with phenomena and see that there is no substantial entity anywhere, that everything changes according to causes and conditions.

"If there is nothing to be aware of, then there is no self. This seems to agree with some Zen teachings, I read about the senses being pollutants - as soon as I see something, I am polluted (can't remember the exact text). When I close my eyes, I can't see anything, so I am not being 'polluted' by visible things."

Pollution is attachment, not the object of attachment. Whether you open or close your eyes, attachment is still there. Realise that all experience comes and goes, then there is nothing to attach to.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: "Gateless Gate" a correct translation?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I wouldn't go down that road. Heine is a scholar, not a teacher. When working with the Mu koan, it is far better, IMO, to work with a teacher and follow teachers' instructions, like Dahui's instructions. Later, it can be valuable to look at scholarly contributions, but early on, they are bound to just introduce more confusion.

Astus wrote:
That depends on how one approaches Zen. If you mean following the method of using the word or the story as an object of meditation, that does not require much explanations, the Mumonkan itself gives the basic instructions. However, that is not the only path in Zen, it is just one of the many options. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste.

Here's one from the Korean tradition on the 10 faults of hwadu practice, generally applied to the Mu koan:

There are ten kinds of faults for the points of stories (hwadu):
to ponder it with the faculty of intention (manas);
to estimate (subtle movements of the mind such as) where you raise eyebrows and blink eyes;
to seek your livelihood on the path of language;
to draw evidence from writings;
to try to be enlightened only where it is raised up;
to toss it away into a casket of no concerns;
to make understanding (of it in terms) of (it as) existence or non-existence;
to make an understanding of (it as) the truly non-existent;
to make an understanding of it as reason;
and to hold onto delusion and wait to be enlightened.
(Mirror of Seon in Collected Korean, vol 3, p. 80))


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: "Gateless Gate" a correct translation?
Content:
LastLegend said:
What does " Mu" mean?

Astus wrote:
http://cojak.org/index.php?function=code_lookup&term=7121 - not to have / no / none / not / to lack / un- / -less

Regarding the koan, start here: http://blog.oup.com/2012/04/four-myths-about-zen-buddhisms-mu-koan/.
The complete work: https://books.google.com/books?id=1eLUAAAAQBAJ
Might also look into this one as well: https://books.google.com/books?id=BGpH1Q3zK74C


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: "Gateless Gate" a correct translation?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm answers the question. From the preface:

Buddhism makes mind its foundation and no-gate (無門) its gate (法門).

The Great Way is gateless (無門),
Approached in a thousand ways.
Once past this checkpoint (關)
You stride through the universe.

From the comment on the first case:

In order to master Zen, you must pass the barrier (關) of the patriarchs. To attain this subtle realization, you must completely cut off the way of thinking. If you do not pass the barrier (關), and do not cut off the way of thinking, then you will be like a ghost clinging to the bushes and weeds. Now, I want to ask you, what is the barrier (關) of the patriarchs? Why, it is this single word "Mu." (無) That is the front gate (關) to Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: eradicating defilements
Content:
Astus wrote:
"According to this teaching, simply the awareness that you are deluded, which comes from practising zazen, makes you, in reality, a Buddha. It's zazen that teaches us that we too are deluded, and hence delivers us from this delusion. When we actually practice zazen and look carefully at all the deluded ideas that keep popping up, we realize how ordinary we are and how little we have to be proud of or to brag about; nothing to do other than quietly hide away. This is, after all, what we truly are."
( http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/yokoyama.html#2 )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Impermanence
Content:
Konchok Namgyal said:
However ultimate reality is a bit different.

Astus wrote:
What separate reality do you say there is besides impermanent phenomena? It is because things are impermanent that they can be called empty, and there is no emptiness besides appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 24th, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see no problem with the theory that the title represents the essence of the sutra, and the sutra contains the essence of the whole Buddhadharma. The whole world in a single atom, the three-thousand world in a single thought. And this all can be learnt and understood if one has the time and capacity to study the teachings. But, (1) that's not yet the direct realisation of interdependence, and (2) without actually going through the scriptures and treatises the title itself bears no meaning. Even in Pure Land Buddhism one needs some level of knowledge of Amitabha and Sukhavati, develop faith, and only after that has the recitation of the buddha's name any value. For the recitation of the sutra title to become a perfect practice and not just chanting some foreign words there has to be perfect realisation. To connect recitation and realisation it is not enough to explain how theoretically it could be one, as even a single letter can be the expression of the whole teaching, but just because almost every language has the 'A' sound doesn't mean people understand it as the ultimate truth. So, is there any teaching in the Nichiren tradition where they put down how insight is included in the practice, not in terms of theorising about the ultimate nature of things, but how the very act of pronouncing something contains insight.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 24th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Impermanence
Content:
Astus wrote:
All beings want peace and happiness. Things are impermanent and thus they provide neither peace nor happiness. Once no stability is sought for there is nothing else left to achieve. Then and there is peace and happiness.

Life with meaning is samsara. Life without meaning is nirvana.

(See previous topic: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425 )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 22nd, 2015 at 6:11 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Queequeg said:
We generally don't break things down like that because we seek a direct connection to the True Aspect - not a circumscribed expedient. We are, as it is, inseparable from the True Aspect, so what can we do that is not involved in this path? Daimoku is an explicit statement of this teaching.

Astus wrote:
I think I still fail to see how a string of syllables and its recitation relates to any insight. Although theoretically it can be explained how the Lotus Sutra itself is the ultimate truth, I can't really put my finger on its actual and practical meaning.

For example, in the Six Wonderful Gates, there are clear stages: counting, following and stabilisation goes as the coarse, subtle and no object for calming the mind, gradually relinquishing objects. It is followed by contemplation, turning and purification where one recognises the emptiness of the object, the subject and thus gains liberation. If I want to consider the recitation of the sutra title as a practice, it fits into the same level as counting the breath. To say that recitation equals realisation, at least as far as I can understand, means that the whole path is pointless. while at the same time there is no practical relation shown between recitation and realisation besides stating that one just has to believe it.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
LastLegend said:
is it necessary to know emptiness conceptually?

Astus wrote:
No, there are quite a few other teachings one can learn and use for liberation, like suffering, impermanence, dependent origination, buddha nature, mind only. But there is always some level of conceptual understanding involved.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
LastLegend said:
According to the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Thanh Tu, each of us has the basic wisdom. He said, for example, when we see smoke from a far distance, we know all that something is burning. This basic wisdom is what we use to see the 5 skandhas as empty. I am not quite sure if this basic wisdom is different from conceptual understanding or separate from conceptual understanding. For example, when we see a tiger, is it the thought of "tiger" that knows that tiger or the know that knows the tiger along with the thought of "tiger"?

Astus wrote:
The example that from seeing smoke one assumes there is fire is a classic one for inference. Regarding the aggregates one does not need that as they are experienced directly, in fact, the five aggregates are what experience is. Still, one needs to reflect on one's experience and understand what it is and how it works. Without reflection there is no understanding and no wisdom. It is actually the lack of reflection why beings suffer. And yes, reflection is a conceptual effort.

If one sees a tiger, unless one knows what a it is there is no way to discern whether it is a dangerous animal or not. Without knowing the difference between poisonous and harmless fruits one can happily eat both. There is no such thing as an inherent biologist in one's mind. But humans do have the ability to learn and understand.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
Astus wrote:
Learning, understanding and confirming are the various stages one has to go through to gain wisdom, not three separate ways. Prajnaparamita is the result, the wisdom attained at the end of the path of studying (i.e. learning, understanding and confirming).

Attachment is based on the thought that there is a substance. Through studying emptiness one's view is corrected and there is no more reason for grasping. Just as believing the rope to be a snake incites fear, correcting that belief removes fear. It is non-conceptual in the sense that the very attachment to concepts is what is corrected by learning that they have no true essence.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 19th, 2015 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
LastLegend said:
How does one go from conceptual understanding of emptiness to relinquishing of all views [even view of emptiness]? If conceptual understanding of emptiness is necessary, at which point it is no longer necessary? If conceptual understanding of emptiness is not necessary, how is one be able to relinquish of all views?

Astus wrote:
Wisdom is gained from (1) learning, (2) understanding and (3) confirming.
1. First one learns that appearances are without permanent substance.
2. Next one understands through various explanations and arguments what a substance is and why it cannot exist.
3. Finally one observers in one's own personal experience that the teaching is valid.

Example:
1. Statement: all phenomena appearing within the six sensory gates are impermanent.
2. Explanation: everything sensed and perceived change, they appear and disappear, there is nothing that stays.
3. Confirming: in a comfortable place with a calm and attentive attitude one observers that indeed there is nothing seen, heard, sensed or thought that does not change.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 19th, 2015 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Either/Or <---> And
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rainboyo,

If I get you, you mean that while we have all sorts of concepts it is through mental reflection - and here I guess you mean conducting an analytical meditation as prescribed in vipasyana instructions, or putting oneself into the position of the watcher and observing emerging concepts - one can discover a non-conceptual perception that connects directly with reality and results in clear awareness and compassion.

If that is what you mean, then yes, that is kind of the idea, although it is rather the first step whence one has to move on to see that concepts themselves are just concepts and there is no need to remove them.

Ayu,

As LastLegend says, all four options are extremes.
1. Existence - this is taking something to have a permanent substance.
2. Non-existence - this is taking something to disappear completely or not exist at all.
3. Existence and non-existence - this involves both errors of the first two positions.
4. Neither existence nor non-existence - there is no third option besides something either as existent or non-existent.

The problem with the fourth option is that (1) it still tries to fix a real entity, (2) it is trying to wiggle out of logical constraints, (3) it can still serve as a view one attaches to.

Just consider the followings:

- I am neither alive nor dead.
- I am neither pregnant nor not pregnant.
- I am neither at home nor somewhere else.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is the relation between Lojong instruction on absolute bodhicitta and introduction to the nature of mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Queequeg said:
From the Mohochihkuan

Astus wrote:
That quote is like the idea that the first arousal of bodhicitta equals buddhahood in principle. It does not mean one actually is a buddha. ( http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v1/v1p1-4p9.htm )

Queequeg said:
One more question: have you ever undertaken to Chant the Daimoku as a daily practice? That will be another factor in this discussion.

Astus wrote:
No, I'm not a Nichiren follower, just curious about the teachings. I want to know if it is a school where they use chanting as the primary practice but at the same time they rely on wisdom.

Here is something from Nichiren's http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/1 (a section that originally piqued my interest):

A mind now clouded by the illusions of the innate darkness of life is like a tarnished mirror, but when polished, it is sure to become like a clear mirror, reflecting the essential nature of phenomena and the true aspect of reality. Arouse deep faith, and diligently polish your mirror day and night. How should you polish it? Only by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
What then does myō signify? It is simply the mysterious nature of our life from moment to moment, which the mind cannot comprehend or words express. When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the mystic entity of the Middle Way that is the ultimate reality. Myō is the name given to the mystic nature of life, and hō, to its manifestations. Renge, which means lotus flower, is used to symbolize the wonder of this Law. If we understand that our life at this moment is myō, then we will also understand that our life at other moments is the Mystic Law. This realization is the mystic kyō, or sutra. The Lotus Sutra is the king of sutras, the direct path to enlightenment, for it explains that the entity of our life, which manifests either good or evil at each moment, is in fact the entity of the Mystic Law.
If you chant Myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime.

My naive interpretation is that it connects insight into the nature of mind (empty and functional) with recitation. But there is no further discussion there on that. Do you know more like the above?

BTW, why is it that they translate dharma as life? It is pretty confusing and unusual.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: sex and romance
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are a number of answers for that out there.

1. Ideology and practical application rarely match.

in Buddhist terms:
- this is the Dharma ending age where few people can truly achieve liberation
- the path is only for a few exceptional beings

2. There is always a better ideology.

in Buddhist terms:
- bodhisattvas only manifest as worldly people with families to save beings
- desire is the path of a true practitioner

3. No ideology is the best ideology.

in Buddhist terms:
- desire is enlightenment
- it's all just illusion


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Might be of some interest: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=5349 (discussion in the Mahamudra forum)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Depending Origination
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are clear and perfectly followable meditation instructions.

First of all, meditation on breathing is a fundamental one, and it is more than just watching it. It includes the whole path from ordinary being to enlightenment.

For the basics, look at the various instructions on "anapanasati", as it is presented in the suttas and the Theravada school. Lot of teachings. Vipassana in general is also about realising no self.

If you want the Mahayana version, one of the best is Zhiyi's http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/sgs_book_page.htm. But maybe it is a bit difficult because of the language used. So, as previously posted, there are quite a few books out there by modern authors giving you all the details. Some of those not yet mentioned:

Gen Lamrimpa: How To Realize Emptiness
The Dalai Lama: Stages of Meditation

Thrangu Rinpoche:
- Teachings on the Practice of Meditation
- Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind
- Essential Practice: Lectures on Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation in the Middle Way School
- The Middle-way Meditation Instructions: Developing Compassion Through Wisdom : Based on Mipham Rinpoche's Gateway to Knowledge


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Queequeg said:
What does your superficial knowledge of Tientai entail? What do you know about the Lotus and Mahaparinirvana Sutras?

Astus wrote:
I am aware of some general concepts in Tiantai, like the three truths, four samadhis, five periods and the six identities. I have also read the Smaller Calming and Contemplation (小止觀), the Six Wonderful Gates (六妙門), pieces of the Great Calming and Contemplation (摩訶止觀) that are available in English, and The Collected Teachings of the Tendai Lotus School (BDK publication). I have read the Lotus Sutra and some parts of the Nirvana Sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Astus wrote:
Queequeg,

My knowledge of Tiantai doctrine is superficial, and I am even less familiar with its Japanese permutations. I know a little more about Chan and Zen, a tradition that is explicitly (and perhaps even extremely) teaches sudden enlightenment. In Zen one directly goes to total liberation, to freedom from views and attachment, the very goals of the Buddha's teaching in any vehicle. So, if reciting the title equals enlightenment, in what way can repeating specific words bring that about? Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds to me like attributing magical powers to a set of syllables. Pure Land's recitation of the name is said to be effective because one intentionally and consciously connects with Amitabha, and through that one gains birth in his land - this is understandable on the basis of how devotional activity creates karma. Thus what I can see so far in Nichiren's teaching is the way how devotion towards Shakyamuni and the Lotus Sutra forms a karmic bond. But being devoted to the ultimate truth is not the same as realising it, otherwise taking refuge in the Three Jewels is equal to becoming a buddha and then all Buddhists are buddhas. Can you tell me how it is then that Odaimoku includes becoming enlightened to interdependence?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
LastLegend said:
It does not. It does not need to. Interdependence is within concept while what is taught in Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana Sutras such as Diamond and Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra by Manjusri is the inconceivable teaching. By upholding the Lotus Sutra, one is upholding the inconceivable teaching.

Astus wrote:
I think there is no need to explain a faith based practice as if it were anything more than that. As I understand Queequeg's posts, Nichiren intentionally taught the recitation of the sutra title and the worship of the mandala. He was a trained Tendai priest familiar with Chigi's Makashikan and other meditation techniques. However, it seems to me that Nichiren's reason for emphasising recitation of the title is his belief that on the one hand training in shikan is too difficult for most in the mappo, and on the other hand that the title bestows (the seeds of) the Buddha's merits and wisdom ( http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2014/05/19/odaimoku-as-the-seed-of-buddhahood/ ). So, reciting the title is not actually a practice of shikan, nor is it the realisation of interdependence.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thank you for your answer, Queequeg. So if I got it right, Nichiren did not particularly teach anything in line with Tendai's shikan, instead formed a teaching that focuses on faith and worship of the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni, similarly to the Pure Land teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 12th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land Contradicts Buddha Teachings....
Content:
Astus wrote:
一食之頃 - short time of one meal

23rd vow:

"If, when I attain buddhahood, bodhisattvas in my land who would make offerings to buddhas through my divine power should not be able to reach immeasurable and innumerable koṭis of nayutas of buddha lands in as short a time as it takes to eat a meal, may I not attain perfect enlightenment."
(Larger Sutra, tr. Inagaki, BDK ed. p 15)

設我得佛。國中菩薩。承佛神力供養諸佛。 一食之頃 不能遍至無量無數億那由他諸佛國者不取正覺。
(T12n0360_p0268b15-17)

"The Buddha said to Ānanda, “By the Buddha’s power, bodhisattvas of that land go to innumerable worlds of the ten directions, in as short a time as it takes to eat a meal, in order to pay homage and make offerings to the buddhas and World-honored Ones."
(p 37)

佛語阿難。彼國菩薩承佛威神。 一食之頃 往詣十方無量世界。恭敬供養諸佛世尊。
(273c04-05)

未食之前 - before meal

"After thus worshiping the buddhas, they quickly return home to the Pure Land before their meal."
(p 37)

供養佛已 未食之前 。忽然輕舉還其本國。
(273c14)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 12th, 2015 at 4:25 AM
Title: Odaimoku and Insight
Content:
Astus wrote:
Could someone please sum up how the recitation of a sutra title relates to insight into interdependence? Recitation seems like good samatha, but where does vipasyana come into the picture?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 10th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Can you purify past karma comming our way?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is an example of how past karma is experienced by a liberated one: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.01.than.html
Explanation and commentary: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/39.3-Sabbakammajaha-S-u3.1-piya.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 9th, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: On uprooting samsara
Content:
Astus wrote:
As long as one perceives that there are beings there is inevitably the idea that all could eventually cease to exist. A bodhisattva has no such perception or idea, thus liberates all beings. Samsara is without a root.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 5th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Request for something super specific
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shamatha is about manipulating one's experience, to bring the mind to a peaceful and lucid state. Vipashyana is about understanding one's experience, to bring the mind to a peaceful and lucid state. While manipulation has temporary benefits, understanding can be permanent. The difference regarding thoughts is not that they do not occur but how they disappear. During shamatha the mind is occupied with an object and that's how everything else can freely come and go. During vipashyana one knows (learns) there is nothing to grasp, or rather there is no reason for attachment to arise, so everything can freely come and go. Being lost in concepts is an ordinary beings attitude. Blocking conceptualisation through meditative focus is a practitioners attitude. Seeing concepts to be mental fabrication without substance is the wisdom free from ignorance.

As long as there are states we want to keep or achieve the understanding of emptiness is missing. Once phenomena are seen to be without meaning or essence, what could be left to struggle for?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: To Study the Self.
Content:
_Q_ said:
" To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. " ~ Dỡgen Zenzi 1200-1253

What does it mean to study the self?. To forget the self?. How does studying lead to forgetting?

Astus wrote:
There is no Buddhadharma outside the mind, outside one's own realm of experience. The path is not beyond the six senses. Studying is taking a new look at what happens right now, instead of following concepts learnt previously. To forget is not to make up views and ideas that project permanence on the ever changing flow of perceptions.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 19th, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Malcolm said:
The term "non-abiding nirvana" does not exist in sūtras, true, but it is a concept used to explain how nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras is different than Hinayāna nirvana.
...
Which I showed exists in the sutras such as the Lotus and so on, not merely in the Maitreyan corpus.

Astus wrote:
The term is not in the early sutras and it is used in Yogacara works to explain the state of the buddhas. That is, before Asanga there was no such explanation for what the sutras contain, and the sutras themselves don't actually specify.

Malcolm said:
The criticism of Hinayanist nirvana-as-total-cessation is present in Mahāyāna everywhere.

Astus wrote:
Yes. And the idea of total cessation is rejected even in the Nikayas, not only in Mahayana sutras. It is actually among the set of questions not answered by the Buddha.

Malcolm said:
Since when were Buddhas ever inactive in Mahāyāna?

Astus wrote:
They do talk of parinirvana, and what people should do after the Buddha's demise, how stupas should be revered, etc. What sutras do you know that discuss the buddhas activities after their parinirvana? Besides the Lotus Sutra that does not actually say that as mentioned above already.

Malcolm said:
This is not what happened at all.  No matter which Mahāyāna path one follows, one still has to gather the two accumulations via the bodhisattva path.

Astus wrote:
I see a significant difference between ideas that one should stay a bodhisattva indefinitely and that one can reach buddhahood even in this life. I don't see early Mahayana sutras emphasising that one should become a buddha, rather they talk about being a proper non-returning bodhisattva, someone who realises that there is actually nothing to attain, thus could become a buddha any time but chooses not to. Such a choice is nonsense if a buddha is simply a better bodhisattva.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 18th, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
quote said:
The number of realized women and women lineage holders in Tibetan Buddhism far outstrips any other tradition.

Astus wrote:
To this I'd like to add that where bhikshunis still exist there have always been abbesses and women in various positions within the confines of their monasteries, and occasionally they could gather some lay support as well. But they have been neglected both by the mainstream tradition, while at the same time there are not many studies out there either.

Malcolm said:
I don't know about Gelug or Kagyu, but there have been many outstanding women masters in both Sakya and Nyingma.

Astus wrote:
Have you reviewed your 2012 view on women in Tibetan Buddhism?

Malcolm said:
What it has come to mean in the context of Tibetan society is that women are more suited to menial work. Off the top of my head, I can think of only five Tibetan woman who authored texts prior to the mid-twentieth century -- Yeshe Tsogyal, Machig Labdron, Jomo Menmo, Migyur Paldron (daugher of Terdag Lingpa) and Sera Khandro. There are only four or so significant Indian woman who authored texts too, Siddhirajni, Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, and Laksminkara.

The fact is that Tibetan Buddhism is completely patriarchal and sexist -- in fact it is pretty toxic for women in general and is in much need of reform (some of which is happening).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 16th, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Malcolm said:
Since the merit cultivated on the bodhisattva path is limitless, it effects will be limitless. Or are you saying there is some limit to objectless dedications and so on that is not mentioned in the sūtras.

In short, it is very clear that in Mahāyāna the nirvana enjoyed by the Buddha does not entail the absolute cessation of his continuum. Further, there are the five certainties of the Sambhogakāya, and in terms of the two rūpakāya, the Sambhogakāya is definitive, whereas the nirmanakāya shows up here and there like the illusion of an illusionist.

Astus wrote:
I have only followed what the sutra implies by stating that the merit gathered on the bodhisattva path has not yet expired.

It seems to me that such an absolute cessation, as it is attributed to Hinayana, is a misinterpretation even from a Nikaya perspective where the Buddha explicitly denies that option (SN 22.85-86; MN 72; AN 4.174, etc.). And similarly to Mahayana's view on the true nature of the dharmakaya, nirvana is considered beyond conceptualisation (MN 44).

Where this discussion has started was that I have stated that early Mahayana favoured staying a bodhisattva, and one of the reasons for that was the lack of the concept of non-abiding nirvana of buddhas. Once buddhas got the same active position as bodhisattvas, the goal has moved to attaining buddhahood. Then almost everyone started to regard the bodhisattva path too long and arduous and various means to attain buddhahood swiftly occurred. So, we could say that there has never been the case that people had a far away goal in mind, instead they aimed for being an arhat/bodhisattva/buddha in this very life, because then that was the best and highest goal.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 15th, 2014 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
However, you grandly claimed a few posts ago that non-abiding nirvana was a "late" development.  But we see here that the Buddha taught it. So?

Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra does not say non-abiding nirvana, nor even contains the idea that there is any other nirvana than what was taught in the agamas and PP sutras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Sheng 's commentary (completed in 432) on the life-span chapter equates the Buddha with ultimate reality. His introduction to the chapter says,

"There is no way that the Sage can be in that category. Only the deluded would count the actual life-span of the Buddha as a hundred years. Now such a [mental] impediment is driven out. [The Buddha] relies on [the theory of] longevity to dispel it. Thus this chapter is titled "Life-Span."" (tr. Young-Ho Kim, p 294)

As the http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html says,

"What the World-honored One has explained as the view of self, view of person, view of sentient being, and view of life span, are actually not a view of self, view of person, view of sentient being, or view of life span. Therefore they are called view of self, view of person, view of sentient being, and view of life span."

And the 31st chapter of PP8000,

"Tathagatas certainly do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. Because Suchness does not move, and the Tathagata is Suchness. Non-production does not come nor go, and the Tathagata is non-production. One cannot conceive of the coming or going of the reality- limit, and the Tathagata is the reality-limit." (tr. Conze, p 291)

The Lifespan chapter agrees with the above when it says,

"Because the Tathāgata perceives all the marks of the triple world as they really are: that there is no birth and death, coming or going; that there is also no existence or extinction in the world, truth or falsehood, sameness or difference. The Tathāgata does not view the triple world as sentient beings in the triple world see it." (tr. Kubo & Yuyama, p 225)

This chapter of the Lotus Sutra also says,

"Although my Pure Land never decays,
The sentient beings see it as ravaged by fire
And torn with anxiety and distress;
They believe it is filled with these things.
Because of their misdeeds
These erring sentient beings do not hear
The name of the Three Treasures
For incalculable kalpas.
But all who cultivate merit,
And are receptive and honest,
Will see me residing here,
Expounding the Dharma."
(p 230)

And this,

"The lifespan that I first attained through practicing the bodhisattva path has not yet expired."
(p 225)

So, the chapter actually tells us that on the one hand the Buddha eternally abides in no birth, that is the ultimate reality that can be seen by anyone who practises correctly. On the other hand, the longevity is the result of the merit from the bodhisattva cultivation that eventually expires. Or, the two sides actually stand for the same, that is, suchness as the Buddha's true nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Furthermore, if what you say is the case, how do can you reconcile that with the fact that Śakamuni Buddha in fact attained Buddhahood eons and eons ago?

Astus wrote:
And the Nirvana Sutra has a similar chapter as well on the Buddha's adamantine body. I don't see why there is a need for reconciliation. It is one of the first examples of transferring the eternal dharmakaya to an eternally active buddha, although it still says that Shakyamuni never goes extinct (nirvana), that is, it is either this shore or the other.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Such teachings as this are the basis for the term "non-abiding nirvana."

Astus wrote:
No question about that, that from one developed the other. My point is rather that first it was the bodhisattva that was perceived as a being possessing the active force to stay in samsara, while buddhas eventually attained parinirvana, although before that they did teach and were superior to bodhisattvas. The Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says that once a bodhisattva attained irreversibility, he has a choice whether to stay with beings until the end or go for buddhahood. However, if buddhas were superior and could have also stayed with beings, then choosing to remain a bodhisattva is indeed pointless. Nevertheless, Mahayana has a number of such bodhisattvas who intentionally stick around, although interestingly (or logically) some of them are regarded as buddhas in Vajrayana (e.g. Chenrezig and Kuntuzangpo).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is a very rash assertion — you are posting the opinion of one modern scholar as a fact when he himself in the very quote you cite is clearly guessing. This exemplifies exactly what is wrong with modern Buddhology.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how it is incorrect what the quote says. Can you find the term in a PP sutra or early Madhyamaka? Just did a quick search for it (無住涅槃) in the Great PP Sutra (大般若波羅蜜多經) and no match. Then I continued and found the followings (Taisho volume, number of texts): 16 (2), 18 (2), 19 (7), 20 (4), 25 (3), 26 (2), 30 (1), 31 (8), 32 (3), 33 (5), 34 (2), 35 (2), 36 (1), 38 (1), 39 (3), 40 (5), 42 (2), 43 (3), 44 (2), 45 (4), 46 (1), 48 (1). Here's a guide to what the various volumes contain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Mind and Motion
Content:
LastLegend said:
I pretty much I agree with what you said there, but it sounds like like mindfulness of thought. The real disagreement here is using effort to be aware/mindful of thoughts/motion.

Astus wrote:
If one thinks of something one necessarily knows about that. However, there are different levels of awareness of thoughts, as most of the time they are forgotten the next moment and we end up not understanding the source of the resulting emotions and actions. Thoughts themselves are mostly governed by beliefs and assumptions, and the most fundamental view of them all is that thoughts have essence. The insight required then is to see that thoughts are insubstantial. And even if one can gain that understanding in a single moment, it doesn't mean it cannot be forgotten in the next moment. So, effort may be required both before and after. Before one strives to see the nature of mind. After, one works on reminding oneself of the original realisation.

"Leaving the mind as it is in a relaxed ordinary state without trying to contrive thoughts or create motion in it", isn't that a choice, an effort?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Can you briefly explain how Mahayana and Sravakayana are identical in methods? From my understanding, Zen texts and Sutras such as Diamond and Shurangama have a very distinctive understanding of mind. For example, Bodhidharma's texts say knowing without knowing, seeing without seeing. It sounds like a lot of non-sense there. But I understand that to mean knowing without seeking to know, or contrive to know, or trying to actively to analyze any object/thought in order to know, this way we use not much effort because chasing thought/thinking/mind is delusion. That itself is awareness. Linjii said let the mind be ordinary is the Way. While in Sravakayana, it is taught to concentrate a specific point or object, i.e., at the nose or behind the brain or mindfulness of breathing.

I don't think such understanding is conveyed in Sravakayana. Mahayana is hardcore with emptiness and manifesting in practice. To travel without traveling is because the mind has never moved an inch, though there is motion.

Astus wrote:
From Mazu Daoyi's record:

“What kind of knowledge should one have in order to understand the Way?” The master replied, “Self-nature is originally perfectly complete. If only one is not hindered by either good or evil things, he is called a man who cultivates the Way. Grasping good and rejecting evil, contemplating emptiness and entering concentration—all these belong to intentional creation and action. If one seeks further outside, he strays farther away. Just put an end to all mental calculations of the triple world. If one originates a single deluded thought, this is the root of birth and death in the triple world. If one simply lacks a single thought, then he excises the root of birth and death and obtains the supreme treasure of the dharma-king. Since countless kalpas, the deluded thoughts of ordinary man — flattery, deception, self-intoxication, and arrogance — have formed the one body. Therefore, the sutra says, ‘It is only by many dharmas that this body is aggregated. When arising, it is only dharmas arising; when extinguishing, it is only dharmas extinguishing.’ When the dharma arises, it does not say ‘I arise’; when the dharma extinguishes, it does not say ‘I extinguish.’ The former thought, the later thought, and the present thought—all successive moments of thought do not wait for one another, and all successive moments of thought are quiescent and extinct.
(Jinhua Jia: The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism in Eighth- through Tenth-Century China, p 126)

Putting an end to mental calculation, that is the cessation of mental proliferation (Pali: papanca). The description of arising and disappearing dharmas is virtually the same as what you find in the various insight meditation instructions in Theravada. Zen does not really discuss methods, it points to the final insight one needs to realise, that is: emptiness. The basic instruction for zazen is to let things come and go just as they are, because there is nothing to fix or modify. Insight meditation is not exactly like that, but it does come to the point where perceiving the rise and fall of dharmas brings one to liberation. That is, once it is seen clearly that dharmas are impermanent there is no more clinging to them, in other words, no abiding.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Becoming a Buddha in Mahayana IS the greatest help to others. It's not as if you stop helping beings once you become one, and just hang in nirvana, that is actually describing personal liberation only, which again is the real big difference here to my mind. That goes for modern Theravada too. Personally most Thervadin teachers I've read are teaching the model of simply getting out of Samsara, this is not the same as Mahayana, and you see that even in context of things like Mahayana refuge vows, and things like nirvana being seen as merely the cessation of samsara, and not full Buddhahood. But yes, despite these differences, I can agree that renunciation of samsara, the FNT etc. from Sravaka teaching are indispensable, and that Sravakayana is important.

Astus wrote:
If the best choice were becoming a buddha then there would be no bodhisattvas mentioned who intentionally stay to help beings. They don't stay because they have not yet reached the point where they could become buddhas, but because they want to help all beings. As I have posted above, the option for non-abiding nirvana (and the trikaya doctrine) is a somewhat later development. It is no accident that the seventh vow of Samantabhadra is to request the buddhas to remain in the world.

"Again, O Noble-minded Man, what is meant by “beseeching the Buddhas to remain in the world”? The Buddhas are infinite in number as the minutest dust-motes of the ten quarters and three generations throughout the Dharma-realms and cosmic void; and so are the Bodhisattvas, the Sravakas, the Pratyeka-Buddhas, the wholly learned ones, the partly learned ones, and the well learned laymen. When they set their minds on the attainment of Nirvana; I entreat them all to remain in touch with mankind, instead of entering Nirvana; even to the duration of kalpas of Buddha-lands, equal to the minutest dust-motes in number, in order to benefit all living beings."
( http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/samantabhadra.pdf )

But if we consider the case where someone becomes a buddha, ultimately there is no distinction between the buddhas, as the dharmakaya equals the dharmadhatu, and from that appears all the other kayas. Thus the teaching that all buddhas are the manifestation of a single buddha (Vairocana). As the dharmadhatu is eternally present, whether a hundred more beings attain buddhahood or a thousand, it makes no difference in terms of buddha-bodies appearing in infinite number of worlds. In that sense, from the perspective of the individual practitioner, nirvana without remainder and non-abiding nirvana are the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The reality is that there are three different kinds of bodhisattva motivations spoken of in the sūtras, king-like, captain-like and shepherd-like. There really is no evidence to suppose that the shepherd-like motivation existed first, and the other two were taught later. The way this is taught in the Mahāyāna itself is that the King-like bodhicitta is for those with average capacity, with the shepherd-like motivation being for those of best capacity.

Astus wrote:
My knowledge is limited, but I have not yet encountered those three kinds of motivations in East Asian Buddhism, only Tibetan. Could you specify in what sutras, or even shastras (preferably those already translated to English) it is explained?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Delaying Buddhahood is an odd concept if you accept a non-abiding Buddhahood, you can benefit beings on a far greater scale as a fully enlightened Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is odd if buddhas can stay eternally to help beings. But here's a difference between early and late.

"It is noteworthy that, although the term apratisthita is found in the Prajnaparamitas as mentioned above, the compound word consisting of both apratisthita and nirvana is, in all probability, an innovation by the Yogacaras around the time of Asanga or by Asanga himself in his Mahayana-samgraha."
(Nagao & Kawamura: Madhyamika and Yogacara, p 223)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm said:
the motivation of the bodhisattva path is infinitely superior to the motivation to become an arhat

Astus wrote:
By "bodhisattva career" I meant the aeons of walking the path and even delaying buddhahood intentionally. There is a difference between how buddhahood is interpreted in early and late Mahayana, and it is early Mahayana that focused on becoming a bodhisattva, while late Mahayana is focused on attaining buddhahood as soon as possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 6:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
it makes them the Sravaka vehicle. I shouldn't need to defend that notion on this forum.

Astus wrote:
That's right, sravakas are important. If one can save oneself, that's already great. I think that those of us exposed to Mahayana teachings (sutra and tantra) can be a little fooled by the rhetoric about how superior the bodhisattvayana is. Although here I might add that the majority of popular Mahayana lineages don't emphasise the bodhisattva career, instead they promise buddhahood in this life or the next.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Mind and Motion
Content:
Astus wrote:
Experience is motion and awareness. Motion means that there is change all the time, things come and go. Awareness means that there is consciousness present in experience. Whenever there is awareness, there is awareness of something, and that something changes.

There is no awareness found outside experience, therefore one should not strive for a blank state where nothing happens. Awareness is not the same as what is experienced, so one should not identify anything as one's true being. Because whatever is experienced always changes, there is nothing that could be held onto, nothing to serve as an abode.

Provisionally it can be said that there is a subjective awareness and the various objects occurring. Such a separation can help initially to put a distance between mind and phenomena, and cultivate detachment and mindfulness. But it's better to see right now that all problems arise from not recognising that awareness and motion exist inseparably in experience every moment. Thus there is nobody (mind) to obtain anything (object).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Well, among the 18 to 20 or so Shravakayana schools of pre-Mahayana Buddhism there were a number of groups who probably did hold a lot of the views ascribed to them in Mahayana texts, in particular most in the Sarvastivada school held that individual Dharmas are intrinsically existing.

Astus wrote:
Let's say dharmas have self-nature, that they are the final elements of reality. If this is used for meditation, it means one should become aware of distinct categories of experience instead of viewing them as a "personal matter". This becomes quite understandable if one starts to use the noticing-labelling method. From "I am angry" it becomes "there is anger", or just "anger", or just "unpleasant", or just "feeling". The point is that it loses its edge, its grasp on one's perception. And that's when one can see that it is impermanent, suffering and not self. Once their true characteristics are seen there is no more basis for attachment. If we were to claim that because dharmas are called svabhava there is still attachment it would mean that one has not actually seen the true characteristics of a given dharma, and that is contrary to the very insight gained. Concepts are within the realm of the five aggregates, just as every other possible experience, so they are necessarily released with liberation.

Dan74 said:
The view expressed by Astus is not really that uncommon among Zen practitioners, I think.

Astus wrote:
I think that's partially because if one considers a teaching authentic, i.e. the words of the Buddha, one tries to look at it from the view gained from one's school. That is, instead of interpreting a sutta based on Tsongkhapa, one just looks at it as a Dharma teaching, and tries to make sense of it as such. Practically speaking, many meditation methods used in Mahayana are identical to those used in Hinayana texts. Here's an example, a thesis on one of Kumarajiva's translation: http://www.thichhangdat.com/files/Master_Thesis.pdf

Dan74 said:
"the rest of Buddhism is elaboration and commentary"

Astus wrote:
The following ideas play here:
- historical sequence of texts, that the nikayas are what the Buddha likely/actually taught
- one vehicle view, that there is only one message that is being transmitted
- teachings are skilful means, they are always adapted to the time and circumstances

So, the first manifestation of the one teaching is found in the nikayas, and then later generations had to apply it to various audiences. It is not that there are better and better teachings, rather only newer forms.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
odysseus said:
Anyhow, most Buddhists (and even non-Buddhists) have heard about Green and White Taras. Just for an argument.

Astus wrote:
I think mostly Vajrayana Buddhists and Hindus may know about Tara, as she's not prominent in East Asia where they have Guanyin, while Theravada doesn't really have anyone beyond Shakyamuni. While the cult of Virgin Mary has been strong in Western countries for more than a thousand years, women did not fare very well within society until the 20th century.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I find most of the Mahayana arguments either fabricated or historically bound. Fabricated, as against fictitious sravakas. Historically bound, as to be interpreted within the context of struggle between interpretations and schools. As for the current Theravada and the nikaya texts, there are teachers I find inspiring and to the point, while the scriptures are really superb. I can see the nikayas as the foundational texts, and the rest of Buddhism is elaboration and commentary.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nonsense — Yeshe Tsogyal was prolific. There are many, many texts attributed to her.

Astus wrote:
Attributed to her as a terma? I don't consider that the same as being the actual author, although it is not negligible that she stands as an example of a female master.

Malcolm said:
This is also not so: Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, Siddhirajni, Laxminkara, etc., are just a few of the women authors whose works are prominent in Vajrayāna, who are also considered founders of lineages.
Machig is a historical person, and there is no reason to believe she did not author much of what has been attributed to her.
More recently there is Sera Khandro, Tara Lhamo and so on, twentieth century female authors.
They may be rare, but you are overstating the case by a considerable margin.

Astus wrote:
What level of use/importance do the writings (not the transmissions) of those four Indian female authors carry? What I could gather with a brief search is that the actual founder of the Shangpa Kagyu was Khyungpo Naljor, a male monk, who studied with two of the four yoginis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is all irrelevant, but it seems to me that women had no better situation in Tibet than anywhere else. And even if there were some Indian woman siddhas, in their society they were not recognised as anyone important.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 6:23 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As far as I'm aware, there is not one school or tradition that has a female lineage, nor is there any outstanding (or even not so outstanding) treatise by a woman author. All the founders, thinkers and leaders are men. Some may cite here Machig Labdron, however, she is not much more than the legendary transmitter in Tibet of a practice that was only later canonised by male teachers (we are talking about women's social status here, not "religious stories of the past").

Although nunneries enjoyed some level of autonomy, a monastery can exist only from lay support. As men more often receive education and are considered the leaders in society, they have better connections with lay patrons, thus more donations. Consequently nunneries often depend on male monasteries. Without financial independence and recognition of their merits, it is inevitable that women are generally exist in a lower status as subordinates of monks. There were exceptions, of course.

https://religiousstudies.artsci.wustl.edu/beata_grant:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3-X1o6hA53QC

"Poetry writing assumes, of course, a fairly high degree of literacy. This is particularly true in the case of traditional Chinese poetry, which requires a mastery not only of the classical language but also, because of the frequent use of intertextual references and allusion, of the larger literary tradition, including poetry, history, and philosophy. This is one of the reasons why women poets are considerably less represented in the Chinese poetic tradition. In China, literacy and literature were traditionally looked upon largely as a means to an end, the end being not so much self-expression and aesthetic fulfillment as an official post in the imperial bureaucracy. Because women were excluded from this career goal, it was not considered vital — indeed many felt it to be morally dangerous—that they be provided more than a rudimentary education, if any at all. Nevertheless, a significant number of women, mostly from elite families, of course, did manage to obtain the classical education that was necessary if they were to write."

(from the introduction to https://books.google.com/books?id=KP_7so49oA8C )

http://religion.columbia.edu/people/Bernard%20Faure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HidpRwrmx4AC


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The key difference between sutra and tantra is empowerment.

Astus wrote:
I see. Thank you.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
odysseus said:
How should we interpret this? It´s not a "want to see" or projecting anything... It´s about Lord Buddha´s reality.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism does not control lay society, nor does it really have teachings on political matters. Monastic organisation is regulated by the Vinaya, and there women are somewhat subordinate to men. In terms of Dharma practice, sexual identity is of no concern, never has been.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm said:
it means that the there is no method of experiential introduction in sutra.

Astus wrote:
You mean the lack of empowerment outside Vajrayana? So it's not that you disregard insight meditation, elements of what is used in Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Lamdre, is it?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm said:
because it is an intellectual based on analysis, it is not experientially equivalent with Mahāmudra and Dzogchen.

Astus wrote:
I think I don't fully understand what you mean here. Is it that Madhyamaka does not include experiencing emptiness, or is it that their practice results in something different than what they actually teach?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm said:
As far as tregchö goes, there is really no difference between tregchö, Kagyu Mahāmudra and the meditation the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana — all three have the same point and all three depend on the experiential view imparted during empowerment.

Astus wrote:
Thank you for your answers. You did not mention anything about the view reached in Madhyamaka, as I take the unity of samsara and nirvana here means Lamdre. Is that because you take it to be a purely intellectual thing, or for some other reasons?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The teaching of Dzogchen is not confined to paeans of praise about our natural state. It consists of detailed instructions about the human body, it's channels, functions and so on, all of which require ripening through empowerment. If Dzogchen were only about our natural state, it would not go beyond the Prajñāpāramita sūtras.

Astus wrote:
1. If Dzogchen necessarily includes teachings on the channels and such, does it mean that (a) public books on Dzogchen are actually sutra level teachings on emptiness and mindfulness, (b) whoever teaches/practises Dzogchen without deity yoga and/or togal only uses the name Great Perfection but not the real transmission, and (c) semde and longde, since they don't have togal as far as I'm aware, are not really Dzogchen or just preliminaries?

2. It is my impression that teachings where Dzogchen (and Mahamudra) is reduced to abiding in the natural state is practically no different from what is popularly understood as mindfulness, and similar or even identical instructions are given in modern Zen and Theravada. That is, all three of them matches the taste of similar Western practitioners who want a simple and practical technique and not a complete tradition/religion. Consequently the very question of this topic is so much like what can be seen in Theravada and Zen forums labelling Buddhism a cultural baggage, while the meditation practice is called the essence of the Buddha's teaching.

3. If the teaching on the natural state is no different from the Prajnaparamita sutras - that is, you seem to agree to the unity of Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Madhyamaka in terms of the ultimate view - is it your understanding that Dzogchen is a unique way because of its togal instructions and nothing else?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What counts as treatment by a tradition? Is it the theoretical framework or the organisational status?

It should also be noted that Buddhist communities always exist within a society and the way the Dharma is interpreted is influenced by the culture. Thus, Westerners - at least those middle-class liberal people who are interested in Buddhism - want to see women as equal, and project that into the Buddha's teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen all about "yogic action"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"When no activity whatsoever is performed" - that is not what Zen is all about. From Patrul Rinpoche's text it is the "direct practice" rather than the gradual one that comes close to Zen. But even then, in Zen there is no difference between "in meditation" and "post-meditation". Recovering the nature of mind means not only freedom from appearances but the unhindered functioning of buddha-mind as well, that is the inseparable unity of the two truths. Here's an illustration:

One day while they were picking tea leaves, Guishan said to Yangshan, "All day today I've heard your voice but I haven't seen your form."
Yangshan then shook the tea tree.
Guishan said, "You attained its function, but you haven't realized its essence." 
Yangshan said, "What does the master say?"
Guishan was silent.
Yangshan said, "The master has attained its essence but hasn't realized its function."
Guishan said, "I spare you thirty blows with the staff."
Yangshan said, "If I receive thirty blows of the master's staff, who then will receive thirty blows from me?"
Guishan said, "I spare you thirty blows." 
(Zen master Xuanjue said, "I ask you, who made the error here?")
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 146)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Interesting new book
Content:
Astus wrote:
Robert Sharf: http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf1995,%20Buddhist%20Modernism.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Request for something super specific
Content:
Astus wrote:
As an extension to Anders' post distinguishing wilful thinking and general mental activity, the fourth samadhi in Tiantai/Tendai of http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v2/v2p2-1p5.htm talks about the http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v2/v2p3-1p1.htm: "That not yet thought is called ‘the mind that has not yet arisen’. The desire to be thought is called ‘the mind that desires to arise’. The thought is called ‘remaining in direct connection with the object’. That already thought is called ‘leaving the connection with the object’." This is one possible source you can use. The other is the satipatthana (vipassana) method and all the commentaries, as it mentions what mind objects are to be observed and that one should be aware of their rise and fall. A brief look into abhidharma works can also help to inform oneself of what counts as mental dharma, thus no need to make up one's own system. For instance, the http://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html can be of some help, especially the discussion of mental processes and impulsions ( http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Javana ) in chapter 4.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Earthly Desires are Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is a work with that title by Nichiren: http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/35 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At one point it says,

What is meant by this “wisdom”? It is the entity of the true aspect of all phenomena, and of the ten factors of life that lead all beings to Buddhahood. What then is that entity? It is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. A commentary states that the profound principle of the true aspect is the originally inherent Myoho-renge-kyo. We learn that that true aspect of all phenomena is also the two Buddhas Shakyamuni and Many Treasures [seated together in the treasure tower]. “All phenomena” corresponds to Many Treasures, and “the true aspect” corresponds to Shakyamuni. These are also the two elements of reality and wisdom. Many Treasures is reality; Shakyamuni is wisdom. It is the enlightenment that reality and wisdom are two, and yet they are not two.
These are teachings of prime importance. These are also what is called “earthly desires are enlightenment,” and “the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.” Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo during the physical union of man and woman is indeed what is called “earthly desires are enlightenment,” and “the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.” “The sufferings of birth and death are nirvana” exists only in realizing that the entity of life throughout its cycle of birth and death is neither born nor destroyed. The Universal Worthy Sutra states, “Without either cutting off earthly desires or separating themselves from the five desires, they can purify all their senses and wipe away all their offenses.” Great Concentration and Insight says, “The ignorance and dust of desires are enlightenment, and the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.” The “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra says, “At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?” The “Expedient Means” chapter says, “The characteristics of the world are constantly abiding.” Surely such statements refer to these principles. Thus what is called the entity is none other than Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

It seems to me he means the classic Mahayana doctrines of two truths and no-birth.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is not that one should see a toenail as a buddha with arms, legs and a golden aura.

Konchog1 said:
So we think "this a buddha with the appearance of a toenail"?

heart said:
No, it is a view where you see everything as inseparable purity and equality.

Astus wrote:
And

lorem said:
So, the heart of the matter is
To know that the dakini is your own mind.

Astus wrote:
So, on the path of means, is it through visualising a deity that one trains in the pure vision, because transforming the object of awareness also transforms the subject, while on the path of liberation one only changes the subject from deluded to knowing? In other words, one sees a shining buddha instead of a toenail on the vajrayana path, while in sutra it is just seeing the illusory nature of the toenail, but the result in both cases the relinquishing of the attachment to the toenail. Or is it in some other way?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 29th, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhas are perefectly enlightened beings. Ordinary beings are made of elements and aggregates. That all beings are made of buddhas is a statement connecting the beginning (samsara) with the end (nirvana). It is not that one should see a toenail as a buddha with arms, legs and a golden aura.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Existence And Causation
Content:
LastLegend said:
Does cause and effect still apply?

Astus wrote:
Causality always applies. Is there not a cause for a drawing, for a mental image, for a word, for a thought? Aren't they all impermanent and dependently originated? The only error is believing that they are more than what they are.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Existence And Causation
Content:
LastLegend said:
"if something existed outside of causality, it would be only a conceptual supposition, and thus existed only as a mental phenomena within a causal chain."

Astus wrote:
Can you explain this further sir?[/quote]

Being outside of causality would mean something not experienced. If it is not experienced, it is neither a physical nor a mental phenomena. And although we may speculate about such things, it amounts to nothing more than conceptual proliferation. For instance, one could draw a rabbit with horns, it is still just a drawing and not a living being. So, whatever we think, it is just a thought, and whatever we name, it is just a name.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Existence And Causation
Content:
Aemilius said:
There are several the  buddhist examples of nonexistent phenomena: rabbit's horns, turtle hairs, crow's teeth, and a cloak of turtle hairs. All of these are found in sutras or commentarial literature.

Astus wrote:
"if something existed outside of causality, it would be only a conceptual supposition, and thus existed only as a mental phenomena within a causal chain."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
conebeckham said:
In addition to the parameters of "self visualization," or "inviting the deity in front," there must be "empowerment" of some sort.  That's clear in all Vajrayana schools and lineages, whether Tibetan or not--and it's clear in Malcolm's posts, as well.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's clear. My response was a result of a small surprised curiosity that came from focusing only on his short definition of yidam practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm said:
If there is visualization of oneself as a deity, or you invite a deity in front of you, than this is exactly what yidam practice is.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that visualisation practices like those found in the Pratyutpannasamadhi Sutra and the Amitayurdhyana Sutra count as yidam practice?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm said:
As above, one cannot consider blessing protective amulets as falling under the heading of Vajrayāna practice, much less Yidam deity practice.

Astus wrote:
I did not mean yidams are used in practice by followers of Zen or other schools, it's just that I did not see people questioning the validity of it (except for some I have only heard of who despise Tantric/Tibetan Buddhism for some reason, but they are hardly if ever known among Western Buddhists).

Hanshan Deqing http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/HanshanDeqing.html#c:

"You may also recite mantras to receive the secret seal of the Buddhas; it will alleviate your hindrances. This is because all the secret mantras are the seals of the Buddhasí diamond mind. When you use them, it is like holding an indestructible diamond thunderbolt that can shatter everything. Whatever comes close to it will be demolished into dust motes. The essence of all the esoteric teachings of all Buddhas and ancestral masters are contained in the mantras. Therefore, it is said that, “All Tathagatas in the ten directions attained unsurpassable and correct perfect enlightenment through such mantras.” Even though the Buddhas have said this clearly, the lineage ancestral masters, fearing that these words may be misunderstood, have kept this knowledge a secret and do not use this method. Nevertheless, in order to derive power from using a mantra, you must practice it regularly after a long and extensive period of time. Yet, even so, you should never anticipate or seek miraculous response from using it."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes of course, Astus, this was never disputed.

Astus wrote:
Just meant as an extension of Meido's response.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 6:13 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the perspective of East Asian Mahayana - to what Zen belongs to - the validity of Vajrayana is rarely if ever questioned. There is even a "Secret Teaching Division" (volumes 18-21) in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka that includes all kinds of Tantric texts. In China many Vajrayana works were translated, especially during the Yuan (Mongolian) dynasty, as the court favoured Tibetan Buddhism. In Japan the Shingon school has existed since the 9th century. So, Tantric teachings and methods are recognised as valid in Mahayana beyond Tibet.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Existence And Causation
Content:
Astus wrote:
All phenomena exist as experience. If it is not experienced, it cannot even be imagined. The nature of experience is that it depends on other experiences, is associated with various memories and concepts, hangs in the duality of subject and object. The very presence of experience is a causal event. So, if something existed outside of causality, it would be only a conceptual supposition, and thus existed only as a mental phenomena within a causal chain.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 19th, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Title: Top Ten Issues for Zen Today
Content:
Astus wrote:
Today's blog post by Dosho Port: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildfoxzen/2014/11/top-ten-issues-for-zen-today.html

Topics:

1. Realization vs. Mindfulness
2. Aging white guys vs. everyone else
3. Thorough-going training vs. spiritual by-passing
4. Purpose vs. feeling
5. Ethical investigation vs. moralistic judgements
6. Public vs. private understanding
7. In-person vs. online
8. Monastic vs. householder training
9. Koan vs. shikantaza


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 17th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Interesting new book
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't see that this paradigm has changed, that is, the connection between meditation and teaching. Although there were reforms as the previous description has faded and lost power, but if someone looks around in current Buddhist teachings that are considered the "best and easiest", it is always strongly associated with meditation (Thai Forest Tradition, Burmese Vipassana, Pure Land, Zen, Vajrayana).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 17th, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Zen smell, Zen stink and Zen pong
Content:
Meido said:
Thus my earlier comment that we should freely use these things and not be used by them.

Astus wrote:
I think it is repeated regularly in all Zen communities that one vows to learn immeasurable Dharma-gates. Although that's true for all Mahayana groups, so it's nothing unique to Zen. In fact, the different names and styles give the impression of many distinct sects and paths, including (real/imagined) differences between Soto and Rinzai.

Meido said:
But I did generally explain the utility of ritual, and (since robes were mentioned) also gave a few specific examples of how practice clothing is used.

Astus wrote:
Such approach to physical practice and internal energy seems to me a Rinzai speciality. Monastic robes are (supposed to be) defined by the Vinaya for instance. In China for physical practice there are martial arts, and for rituals there are various tantric elements for instance. But they don't necessarily count as anything related to Zen.

There is a Heine & Wright collection of essays with the title https://books.google.hu/books?id=Q_qAZWejjD4C but I have not yet gotten to read it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 17th, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Zen smell, Zen stink and Zen pong
Content:
LastLegend said:
If you see your nature, then it's useful to do these [rituals]? So which one do or don't?

Astus wrote:
Linji says (tr. Sasaki, p 15):

"Gain understanding such as this, and then you can read the sutras."

Jinul writes in Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind (tr. Buswell, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 2, p 217):

"It is like the maturation of an infant: from the day of its birth, [an infant] is endowed with all its faculties, just like any other [human being], but its physical capacities are not yet fully developed; it is only after the passage of many months and years that it will finally mature into an adult."

That is, with the view that one should initially attain a first hand realisation of the nature of mind and after that study the teachings and perform the numerous practices, one is in accord with the bodhisattva path where the skilful means (1-5 paramitas) are mingled with and based on wisdom (prajnaparamita). As the Diamond Sutra was quoted to Huineng, 'responding to the nonabiding, yet generating the mind' (tr. McRae), or as often repeated in the sutras, a bodhisattva saves all beings without conceiving any being to be saved. That is one way to approach this.

However, the Bodhidharma quote is in a different context. There, before awakening those practices are powerless, after awakening they are useless. Just before the previous quote in the same text you find the following:

"As long as you look for a buddha somewhere else, you'll never see that your own mind is the buddha. Don't use a buddha to worship a buddha. And don't use the mind to invoke a buddha. Buddhas don't recite sutras. Buddhas don't keep precepts."

That is how Zen is a direct pointing to the nature of mind and not a list of methods and practices to follow. One only needs to confirm personally that this mind reading and thinking, this very consciousness (awareness ) is originally without anything to attain or anything to abide on, in other words, it is buddha. As Bodhidharma repeats again and again, there is nothing else transmitted but that the mind is buddha, and that is what can be called the Zen transmission.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 17th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Zen smell, Zen stink and Zen pong
Content:
Meido said:
Yet it seems many folks are in a hurry to disparage or dump inherited forms...not because they've personally put them to the test over years of severe practice and found them lacking, but rather right at the outset. I can only think, therefore, that they do so because of personal prejudice and cultural allegiance, negative experience - or conflation with - other religious traditions, or just plain laziness and unwillingness to look beyond surface appearances. All very unfortunate.

Astus wrote:
It has been repeated over the centuries by various Zen works that Zen does not require any of the usual Buddhist practices, that Zen includes them and at the same time is beyond them. There are even some well known lines explicitly criticising various practices, teachings and attitudes. Then it is quite a different thing when in a Zen group what one finds are rituals, rules, various practices and such. That is, there is a discrepancy between Zen teaching and Zen praxis. It is not surprising then that people may reject those traditional elements as cultural superfluity. At the same time, this topic itself was started with a criticism of attachment to outer elements and rituals.

Bodhidharma in Bloodstream Sermon (tr. Red Pine):

"If you don't see your nature, invoking buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings - but no buddha."

Linji (tr. Sasaki):

"You say, ‘The six pāramitās and the ten thousand [virtuous] actions are all to be practiced.’ As I see it, all this is just making karma. Seeking buddha and seeking dharma are only making hell-karma. Seeking bodhisattvahood is also making karma; reading the sutras and studying the teachings are also making karma. Buddhas and patriarchs are people with nothing to do."

Dogen in Bendowa (tr. Nearman):

"When we speak of the correct Transmission in our tradition, the  straightforward Buddha Teaching of direct Transmission is ‘the best of the best’.  From the very moment when a disciple comes to meet face-to-face with the one  who is to be his spiritual friend and knowing teacher, there is no need to have the  disciple offer incense, make prostrations, chant the names of the Buddhas, do  ascetic practices and penances, or recite Scriptures: the Master just has the disciple  do pure meditation until he lets his body and mind drop off."

So, it is not a strange question to ask for a reason behind all the things going on in Zen communities.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 15th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Zen smell, Zen stink and Zen pong
Content:
Astus wrote:
Comparing the "three Zen fragrances" with a traditional list of stages shows that while the ancient ones discussed traps of realisation, the pong and stink are fascination with outer rituals and labels. But it is not surprising that people are mesmerised by the illusion of Zen when what is being presented as Zen is the illusion. So, either attachment to robes, labels and ceremonies is a skilful means, or it is wrong to have them from the beginning.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 6:54 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Translating sudden Enlightenment teachings into terms understandable to non-secular Theravadins for example would probably have to use a different terminology.

Astus wrote:
Ajahn Mun's lineage has mostly covered that, while the Burmese have bare awareness (or is that only used in English?). But instead of mindfulness we could call it non-attachment or non-grasping and point out that all phenomena are already impermanent and empty.

"Awareness, the awakened state, takes you out of ignorance immediately, if you'll trust it. As soon as you are aware, ignorance is gone. So then, when ignorance arises, you can be aware of it as something coming and going, rather than taking it personally or assuming that you're always ignorant until you become enlightened. If you're always operating from the assumption that 'I'm ignorant and I've got to practise in order to get rid of ignorance,' then grasp that assumption, you're stuck with that until you see through the grasping of that view."
( http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn_Sumedho_Personality.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
LastLegend said:
If that's the case, one would be trapped in awareness of awareness and not going to work to pay bills.

Astus wrote:
In that case I misunderstood and we are in agreement.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
LastLegend said:
Why does it sound like a self contained state if there is no intention to contain such a state?

Astus wrote:
Self-contained, as it is without anything else but itself, awareness of awareness.

LastLegend said:
The nature of mind is empty in what aspect? And what is nature?

If you look at brick, you think there is division between you and brick, then you make a seperation between you and brick-the object of brick to be seen and the one who sees the brick- the observer and the observed. Right there is the problem. If you see that because of brick, there is you and because of you, there is brick, there should not be any object to observe. Why? Because you is void and not a thing in yourself, not anything of substance in any shape or form that you can see because if you can see yourself, you would not be void and a thing in yourself with substance. If you try to find you, you create a devision between you and the "you" you want to find-devision between subject and object. So then it said, "You become the thing itself." If you become the thing itself, there is no object to see. I think that's what meant by seeing isn't seeing, understanding is isn't understanding because there is no object/place for thought to arise.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means the lack of substance, a permanent self-essence. That's what they're empty of. That the nature of mind is empty means that there is no independent being or thing that is mind in and of itself. There are only interdependent mental phenomena.

Although there is no substantial mind nor substantial brick, one can still recognise a brick and use it for various purposes. That's the inseparability of essence and function, emptiness and interdependence.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
LastLegend said:
Not understanding-because there is no object to understand since no thought arises, no form arises. That is the awareness. Bodhidharma said what mortals understand is delusion because there is object to understand. So in theory, there is nothing to be mindful-awareness is awareness.

Astus wrote:
That sounds like a self-contained state of senselessness. What's the use of that?

LastLegend said:
If the nature of mind is the nature of form, and the nature of form is the nature of mind, there is no seperation there. If there is no seperation, what is to be aware of but aware itself?

Astus wrote:
The nature of mind is that it is empty. The nature of form is that it is empty. Just because both a bowl of rice and a pile of brick are impermanent it does not mean you could eat either of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
LastLegend said:
Yes, I understand that. But Buddha isn't just mind that is separate from object. It would be outrageous to people to say that Buddha is object and object is Buddha. It is also outrageous to imagine that Buddha is just mind dangling somewhere. If you say Buddha has mental activities, i.e.., thinking, like we do, then Buddha is deluded. If Buddha is empty mind, why does he need thought to arise since thought arises form arises.

Astus wrote:
Consciousnesses and their related objects (the whole 18 dhatus) are the functions of a sentient being. If there is identification, attachment, it is delusion. If there is no concept of self, no clinging, then it is seeing clearly. And the latter is what being buddha means. Both mind and objects are originally empty, it is through realising that that one can relinquish attachment and attain liberation. It does not mean that one should strive for a mind without mental functions (i.e. thoughts).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
LastLegend said:
not understanding is the awareness; awareness understands everything but it does not arise thought arise form.

Astus wrote:
It is unclear to me what you mean there. Please elaborate.

LastLegend said:
So both extinguished what remains is an empty mind, but when Buddha manifests (not by mind/thought) there is appearance?

Astus wrote:
Buddha is not a manifest object or emanation but the nature of mind. When the text says that one should not generate mind and form, it means clinging to mental and physical phenomena. That mind and form depend on each other is like seeing a beautiful object and feeling desire for it. Purity means that one is not deluded by either mental or material appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 4:22 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
Astus wrote:
Experience cannot be conceived, otherwise it would stay for ever.

LastLegend said:
Can you explain this please?

Astus wrote:
If experience could be conceived, grasped, held, it would mean that it is some real thing on its own, that we can stop the flow of change and time. Normally that's how we think about everything, as distinct objects that we can manipulate in one way or another, or objects that impact our mind. That is the deluded belief in substantial appearances, in permanent things. However, if we care to look a little closer, it is quite obvious that the present moment cannot be grasped at all, the experience is inconceivable. It is only in the realm of concepts that we attribute a substance, a self to our experience. But thoughts are also experience, nothing permanent or real.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Is this a view that is shared by all schools of Buddhism?
I thought awareness/consciousness was a skandha, which would tie it to a particular body-mind.

Astus wrote:
That depends on how we present it. In a single moment there is a single moment of consciousness. That could be called one mind. Also, every being has a single stream of consciousness. That could be called one mind. Xuanzang says (Three Texts on Consciousness Only, p 64)

"Thus in many places in the scriptures it is said that there is only the one mind. "One mind" also includes mental activities. Therefore the mode of activity of consciousness is perception, and perception is the seeing part of consciousness."

But those are not exactly what is meant here, as the context is the teaching of buddha-nature. And as Huangbo says (Zen Texts, p 13, BDK Edition),

"It is only this One Mind that is Buddha; there is no distinction between Buddhas and sentient beings. However, sentient beings are attached to characteristics and seek outside themselves. Seeking it, they lose it even more."

The point is that when talking about buddha-nature teachings, the method is not really about dissecting experiences to reveal the illusion of solidity but to bring attention to the mind experiencing phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
rachmiel said:
This "mind" that is being talked about ... it is clearly not the particular mind, i.e. what appears say in my field of awareness and not in yours.

So if it is not the particular mind ... what IS it? Alaya-vijnana?

Astus wrote:
There is only one mind, one awareness. Talking about six, eight or more consciousnesses is only differentiating and categorising various groups of mental functions. Still, experience is experience for one and not many. The above summary discusses just this experiencing mind all beings have.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
Jesse said:
That's true, but it can be distracted. Isn't the ability to be un-distracted what allows us to see the mind for what it is? Otherwise we'd be lost in the illusions of thought, attached to the arising and passing of experiences, which is samsara in it'self.

Astus wrote:
In order to be distracted there must be a desired state one is moved from by some other state. And if that can happen, both states are temporary phenomena, different moments of experience. Attachment is believing that there is something lasting, something that can be grasped. Seeing experiences for what they are is not the rejection of something existing nor a creation of something new.

See what Dahui wrote (Swampland Flowers, p 69),

"You say that you have dull faculties. Try to reflect back like this: see if the one who can recognize the dullness is dull too or not. If you don't turn the light around and reflect back, you're just keeping to your dull faculties and adding more affliction. That would be adding illusory falsehood to illusory falsehood, laying on optical illusion on top of optical illusion. Just listen: the one who can know that sense faculties are inherently dull is definitely not dull. Though you shouldn't hold to this dull one, you shouldn't abandon it to study, either; grasping and rejecting, sharp and dull – these have to do with people, not with Mind. This Mind is one substance with all the buddhas of the three worlds: there is no duality. If there were duality, the Dharma would not be of even sameness. "Receiving the teaching" and "transmitting Mind" are both empty falsehoods. Looking for truth and seeking reality seem even further off.
Just realize that Mind, with a single essence and no duality, definitely does not lie within sharp and dull or grasping and rejecting: then you'll see the moon and forget the finger, immediately making a clean break. If you linger further in thought, calculating before and after, then you're still understanding the empty fist as if it held something real, falsely concocting strange things amidst the phenomena of the sense objects, vainly confining yourself within matter, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness, within the elements of sensory experience – you'll never get done."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
Jesse said:
At least what I know from mindfulness from TNH's teachings, it is the ability to stay grounded in the moment by not being attached to the arising of phenomena in the mind-stream.

What your talking about is closer to zazen or dzogchens presence teachings isn't it? Your basically saying if your enlightened your mind will already be mindful?

Astus wrote:
Experience always happens in the moment and there is nothing we can do to stop it in its arising and passing. Because that is already so, that's why the mind is already mindful. It cannot be unmindful.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Title: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
Astus wrote:
The unique teaching of Zen is sudden enlightenment. Here I try to translate that to the current language using the popular thought of mindfulness.

The mind is already mindful, it cannot be increased or decreased. Whatever occurs it is naturally aware of it. The mind is not born out of conditions, so it is free and independent, unaffected by appearances. That is, experience is known and inconceivable at the same time. Experience cannot be unknown, otherwise it would not be experienced. Experience cannot be conceived, otherwise it would stay for ever. Mind and experience are one and the same. As mind is necessarily mindful, so is experience necessarily known. As mind is necessarily nothing concrete, so is experience necessarily inconceivable. See the experiencing mind for what it is and mindfulness is perfected immediately.

Question is, is it an acceptable idea that mindfulness is not developed and there is no training for it?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's mind and form
Content:
Astus wrote:
Somewhat confusing text, isn't it? But all it talks about is quite standard, that is, the seeing of the 18 dhatus for what they are and thus attaining liberation from attachment to phenomena.

"Those who don’t understand don’t understand understanding. And those who understand, understand not understanding."

凡迷者：迷於悟，悟者：悟於迷。 - The common confused (mi 迷) [people] are confused (mi 迷) about understanding. Those who understand (wu 悟) [enlightened ones] understand (wu 悟) confusion (mi 迷).

"form isn’t simply form, because form depends on mind. And mind isn’t simply mind, because mind depends on form."

色不自色，由心故色；心不自心，由色故心 - form is not form in itself, because mind makes form; mind is not mind in itself, because form makes mind

"Mind and form create and negate each other."

是知心色兩相俱生滅 - that is to know: mind and form are both just birth and death (samsara).

"When your mind doesn’t stir inside, the world doesn’t arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is true vision"

若內不起心，則外不生境，境心俱淨，乃名為真見 - If inside mind does not arise, then outside [sense-]objects are not born. Objects and mind are both pure, that is called true vision.

"And such understanding is true understanding."

作此解時，乃名正見。- When you are freed from it, only then it is called correct seeing/vision.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 30th, 2014 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Tendai vs. Gelug: Problems with Syncretization?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I consider it a mistaken line of thinking to believe that there are actually "pure traditions". It is similar to the idea of other purisms: linguistic, ethnic, artistic, philosophic, etc. They are actually in contradiction with dependent origination and how life is organic on both material and spiritual levels.

Zhiyi organised the various teachings he had access to into a loose system. Tsongkhapa did the same. Today in English there is no complete translation of all the works of either of them, but we have access to both to some extent. Why couldn't they be combined? I think if one wants to cross the river, one has to make use of whatever kind of wood is available. As long as it floats it is a vehicle of liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Understanding emptiness exercise
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness is being empty of something permanent, real, solid. Appearances are not denied but seen for what they actually are, that is, conceptual constructs. In other words, a tree does not say it is a tree, we call it a tree. And with this single word we have a whole web of associated concepts to build an imaginary reality that we take to be factual. If you don't call it a tree, what is it?

Shuzan Osho held up his shippei [staff of office] before his disciples and said, "You monks! If you call this a shippei, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a shippei, you ignore the fact. Tell me, you monks, what will you call it?"
(Mumonkan, case 43 [cf. case 40], tr. Sekida)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 27th, 2014 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Bankei and three nens question
Content:
Astus wrote:
This three nens system is fairly primitive and from Bankei's Zen perspective pointless.

It is primitive, as it shows how certain teachers know little to nothing about 'fundamental' teachings, Abhidharma and Yogacara, as both contain various explanations and systems for analysing mind and mind moments. (E.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#citta ) But even before when turn to complicated Buddhist scholastic texts, the five aggregates explain quite well what the "three nens" tries to say. The first nen of direct sensual experience is the body aggregate, the second nen of judging and naming is the second and third aggregate, the third nen of reflection third and fourth aggregate. Now, according to the teachings, the problem is not with the aggregates themselves, but with attachment and wrong identification. Clinging to only bodily impressions (first nen) is not only pointless (does not lead to liberation) but also just another form of self view.

Zen in general, and Bankei in particular is not about setting up systems to explain how the mind works. First of all, there are already texts and traditions that do just that. So, if one wants an in depth teaching, there are sources and teachers to turn to. Bankei taught about the Unborn, that is, a mind that is not bound to any state but open and aware. It is unborn, as it is not born as this or that - e.g. angry, happy, mindful, senseless, etc. - in other words, without self, without identification. To say that one should practise with or stay in a particular state of mind, that is exactly giving birth to a mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 23rd, 2014 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Which buddhism on this forum can be practised trough boo
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is up to you. There has been even outstanding teachers who relied primarily on the Buddha's teachings as contained in the sutras. In fact, only Vajrayana restricts itself to contact with teachers, and even then it is mostly for receiving empowerments. Otherwise, there is no such rule that you must have a teacher. Except for receiving ordination as a bhikshu, you can get everything from books. (Actually, there is a sutra in the Chinese canon that allows full ordination without a preceptor, but that's a different matter.)

"all of the buddhas and all of their teachings of peerless perfect enlightenment spring forth from this sūtra"
(Diamond Sutra, ch 8)

"This sutra is the treasure house of the hidden essence of all the buddhas."
(Lotus Sutra, ch 10)

"Those who grasp at emptiness slander the Sutras by maintaining that written words have no use. Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, ‘not established’ are themselves written."
(Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, ch 10)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Shin Buddhism: Amida's "Methodology" of Salvation
Content:
Astus wrote:
The sambhogakaya and the buddha-field are both the results of a bodhisattva's cultivation and accumulated merit. It is possible to conceive of any buddha as an active force that helps beings along the path to liberation, and also as a person full of compassion. Naturally, it is easier for ordinary beings to think of buddhas as superior humans, and that's fine. So, Amida saves beings as a result of his vows, as vows define the special qualities of buddhas. Connecting with Amida through faith one can be born in the Pure Land. But without that connection there is no way for ordinary beings to go to his buddha-field.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 21st, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Vision going blurry?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If it happens only during meditation, you try to make something special of sitting there. You might be focusing somewhere for too long for instance. If it happens in other, everyday situations, consult with a medical expert.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: Some of my confusions in a sutra
Content:
richardx888 said:
What is the meaning of that actually?

Astus wrote:
1. Dharma teachers should not fear.
2. Dharma teachers should not be attacked.

richardx888 said:
2. In some of the mahayana scriptures, the buddha suggest to rewrite the sutra out. The question is was there any written language during the buddha's lofe? If yes, was writing even that popular during that time? I thought the sutras was written later after the Buddha deceased.

Astus wrote:
As you may have heard, Mahayana scriptures are later than the Agamas/Nikayas, and most of them were transmitted in written form only. Or, if you want, you can think that the Buddha advised his audience to write down the scriptures.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Buddhaqualities may be inherent in the dharmakāya, but only buddhas can see the dharmakāya, just as only buddhas can see tathagātagarbha. Thus one cannot evade the two accumulations, whether it takes three incalculable eons as in common Mahayāna, or on one lifetime, as in Secret Mantra.

Astus wrote:
That may be so. But it would be hard to find any existing Mahayana school of the common type. Tiantai, Huayan and especially Chan teaches a sudden path, while Pure Land teaches liberation in the next life. Only those who deny buddha-nature, i.e. the followers of Xuanzang, talk about a minimal three aeons.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Anders said:
As far as I am concerned, I think these debates about whether there really is a true self or not tend miss a big question, that is quite poignant for any Buddhist who accepts them as buddhavacana, even if only provisionally so: Is it useful to have such a view?

Astus wrote:
"The Buddhas have designated a self;
And have taught that there is no self;
And also have taught that
There is neither self nor selflessness."
(MMK 18.6, tr. Samten & Garfield)

I think those who teach about buddha-nature (true self) usually emphasise how it is both empty and not-empty. That is the case in both East Asian and Tibetan Mahayana, while at the same time there are not many Mahayana teachers who strictly distance themselves from the tathagatagarbha doctrine. Practically speaking, since the buddha qualities are inherent, it becomes possible to skip aeons of accumulating merit, so we have all the "enlightenment in this body" teachings as the mainstream of Mahayana.

Sherab Dorje said:
My opinion is that for westerners, this intense grasping to the concept, is just baggage from their Abrahamic past.

Astus wrote:
And that's why it is popular. And because of the promise of immediate liberation. As the wonderful Mazu Daoyi explained (tr. Ferguson, p 76):

A monk asked, “Master, why do you say that mind is Buddha?”
Mazu said, “To stop babies from crying.”
The monk said, “What do you say when they stop crying?”
Mazu said, “No mind, no Buddha.”
The monk asked, “Without using either of these teachings, how would you instruct someone?”
Mazu said, “I would say to him that it’s not a thing.”
The monk asked, “If suddenly someone who was in the midst of it came to you, then what would you do?”
Mazu said, “I would teach him to experience the great way.”

And from Keys to Buddhism by Thich Thanh Tu (p 58):

"The Owner is the tranquil, aware essence that has never been agitated, changed, or eradicated. To experience it, try this contemplation: When meditating or sitting alone at a quiet place, note how your feelings, conceptions, mental formations, and consciousness calm down, yet your eyes, your ears, etc., are full of awareness. Then, ask yourself, “Who is it that is seeing, hearing, etc.? Is it the permanent, tranquil, aware nature inside?” Therefore, the theory of “the Owner” mentioned here does not contradict the Buddha’s teaching about no self. When we have real experiences, we know it. It is useless to hang on to or argue over theories.

Question: In many sutras, the Buddha reprimanded views about permanence and annihilation while this section says, “the Owner is permanent and unchanging.” Is this section similar to heterodox views of permanence?”

The heretic holds on to the idea that the five-aggregate body is permanent when, in fact, it is impermanent, bound to birth and death. Therefore, the Buddha reprimanded their viewpoint. That which takes form and belongs to birth and death is impermanent. Since the Owner is formless, beyond duality, and free from birth and death, how can it be impermanent? We make efforts to express the Owner by saying that it is permanent and unchanging. In fact, when practitioners realize this aware nature in themselves, they will understand this sense of permanence that cannot be described. Therefore, when we say that the Owner is permanent and unchanging, it is not similar to heterodox views of permanence, and, as such, there is no contradiction."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is a fine summary:

"From the beginning, Suchness in its nature is fully provided with all excellent qualities; namely, it is endowed with the light of great wisdom, the qualities of illuminating the entire universe, of true cognition and mind pure in its self-nature; of eternity, bliss, Self, and purity; of refreshing coolness, immutability, and freedom. It is endowed with these excellent qualities which outnumber the sands of the Ganges, which are not independent of, disjointed from, or different from the essence of Suchness, and which are suprarational attributes of Buddhahood. Since it is endowed completely with all these, and is not lacking anything, it is called the Tathagata-garbha when latent and also the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata."
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Jon Kabat-Zinn: authorization to teach?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't really see the relevance of authorisation. It counts if one tries to present oneself as the representative of someone else. However, there seems to be no claim for anything like that. Anyone can teach whatever they want to (science, art, religion, etc.). The important question is the content of the teaching, not who else claims that the teacher is fantastic. I don't see Candrakirti criticising Yogacara teachers for their lack of special authorisation. Buddhism is not copyrighted.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: How to stop desiring in meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Trying to remove concepts with more concepts hardly ever works, unless you learn to be good at proper Buddhist reasoning. If you just want the zazen remedy, the skilful means is focusing on your posture, as it's been advised before. Of course, that's not exactly Zen but body-mindfulness, it can still work. There are other options as well, like using a koan, breath, or you could walk instead of sitting. Also check http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/meiho.html for some inspiration.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
conebeckham said:
There most certainly CAN be the use of channels and winds in Mahamudra,is some way,  even in a path that does not utilize deity yoga or the stages of creation and completion.

Astus wrote:
The only point I wanted to bring to this topic with mentioning Mahamudra was about the development of Buddhist philosophy in India. The gradual integration of Vajrayana to a monastic environment resulted, among other things, in the "blending of Sutra with Tantra". It also seems to me a natural evolution of things that there appeared some who were critical of Vajrayana and, according to their claim, they superseded even HYT.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yeah, this is not just not true Astus, the basic practice of this approach to Mahāmudra is guru yoga. It may not involve the two stages per se, but it does involve practices such as Vajrasattva, mandala offerings and so on which are characteristic of Vajrayāna practice, i.e., there is still is purification and gathering accumulations. And more importantly, there is the practicing of integrating one's mind with the mind of the Guru based upon so called "direct introduction."

Astus wrote:
Mathes concludes in the mentioned article (and this is what I have said before):

"Our study of the Tattvadasakatika has shown that no Tantric empowerment or such skillful means as great bliss are required by this type of mahamudra, which merely depends on the pith-instructions of one’s guru."

As further reference (although actually both works contain the preliminary practices you mentioned):

Takpo Tashi Namgyal writes (Mahamudra: The Quintessence, p 124):

"if one follows venerable Gampopa's system in elucidating mahamudra alone, it is not necessary to bestow the empowerment upon devotees. In keeping with his system one should adhere to the preparatory exercises he prescribed without incorporating the tantric meditation of Vajrasattva, the utterance of mantra, the transformation of oneself into yidam, and the visualization of one's guru in the form of Buddha Vajradhara, the source of the mystic empowerment."

Thrangu Rinpoche explains (Essentials of Mahamudra, p 89):

QUESTION: You said that mahamudra is taking direct perception as the path. Also, you said that mahamudra is the path of the blessing of faith and longing devotion. Could you explain the relationship of devotion to mahamudra practice?
RINPOCHE: I spoke about three different divisions of the path.They were taking inference as the path, taking blessing as the path, and taking direct experience as the path. The second of those, taking of blessing as path, is the meditation upon yidam deities, the practice of guru yoga, and the practices of subtle channels and drops. The third is being introduced directly to the mind as it really is. These latter two are not incompatible with one another. The introduction to mahamudra is the pointing out of your mind.

And even if we add the preliminary practices, there is still no requirement or even use of the channels and winds in one's practice of Mahamudra.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: How do I know when to start shikantaza?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shikantaza does not depend on how long you can concentrate on your breath. Just sitting means just sitting, nothing complicated.

"Shikantaza means “just sitting” in Japanese,  and to just sit means that we really only sit without doing anything  else. This is a really simple practice; we do nothing but sit in the zazen  posture breathing easily, keeping the eyes open, staying awake, and  letting go. That’s all we do in zazen; we do nothing else." (Shohaku Okumura: http://www.sanshinji.org/pdf/zazen_instructions.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
First of all, what do you mean by a "direct" Mahāmudra path? What are its characteristics, and so on. Then we will see whether or not it is part of Vajrayāna or not.

Astus wrote:
Direct in the sense that it does not require empowerments or other practices, only the instructions of the teacher pointing out the nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
since everyone he cites was already a well schooled Vajrayāna master, his argument is quite weak.

Astus wrote:
If they were competent Sutra and Tantra teachers, wouldn't that rather strengthen the validity of their assessment of the direct Mahamudra path?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
But the fact of the matter is that Maitripa promulgated a cycle of Vajrayogini teachings which is preserved to this day in both Kagyu and Sakya. Saraha wrote a famous commentary on the Buddhakapala tantra, and is credited with being the first master to promulgate the Cakrasamvara tantra and so on. Maitripa also bestowed many empowermen's and teachings on Marpa.

Astus wrote:
They don't exclude each other. Kagyu has a large number of Tantric teachings besides Mahamudra, just as Gampopa taught both path of means and path of liberation. What the mentioned article attempts to show is that "not-specifically-Tantric" Mahamudra existed already in India, and those who taught it considered it beyond both Sutra and Tantra like Gampopa.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, Astus. First, there is no such thing as a "sahajayāna" — this is fabricated term. Maitripa taught standard Vajrayāna, as did these other masters, complete with creation stage and completion stage.

Astus wrote:
A number of teachings by the mentioned Indian masters show something else. See for instance: http://www.academia.edu/5614409/Mathes_2006_Blending_the_Sutras_with_the_Tantras_The_Influence_of_Maitripa_and_his_Circle_on_the_Formation_of_Sutra_Mahamudra_in_the_Kagyu_Schools


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm said:
It means that in Vajrayāna, the key to awakening lies in human anatomy, not in philosophical speculation. It means that all the qualities of the basis, path and result are complete in the human body, and do not need to be gathered elsewhere. It means that, according to Vajrayāna, that the mind is a function of the body and its anatomy.

Astus wrote:
Didn't what could be called Sahajayana, i.e. Mahamudra teachings, come later, as a further development from Vajrayana? Because it seems to me that it's distanced itself from the energy system established in HYT, and moved closer to established sutra teachings. Well, at least some teachers taught that way ((Saraha), Maitripa, Jnanakirti, Sahajavajra).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: ZenStories' Commentary - Daitsu Chisho Buddha
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The Dharma of the buddhas appeared to the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū [大通智勝佛 (Daitsu Chisho Butsu)] after ten intermediate kalpas had passed, and he attained highest, complete enlightenment." (Lotus Sutra, ch 7, p 115, tr Kubo & Yuyama)

It should also be noted that while Siddhartha had practised asceticism for many years, in the end he realised it had been pointless and switched to sitting pleasantly in the shade of a tree after a good meal.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Accepting death
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Those people in Uruvelakappa whose murder, imprisonment, fining, or censure would cause me sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair are those for whom I feel desire & passion. Those people in Uruvelakappa whose murder, imprisonment, fining, or censure would cause me no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair are those for whom I feel no desire or passion."

( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.011.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 20th, 2014 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Tibetan Buddhism world-denying?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism itself is world-denying. Just look at the life story of Gautama.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 20th, 2014 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Do sentient beings gain merit when one generates Bodhici
Content:
LastLegend said:
Merit is transferable

Hieros Gamos said:
It is?

Astus wrote:
Not literally. Merit transference means that (1) one dedicates the merit generated by some good action (as a practice of generosity and non-attachment), and (2) another identifies with the giver's actions, agrees with them and rejoices in them (thus creating a similar mental attitude).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 19th, 2014 at 5:19 PM
Title: Re: Do sentient beings gain merit when one generates Bodhici
Content:
Astus wrote:
Merit is the result of one's actions, a positive mental imprint. If one's lunch could fill another's belly there'd be no point in the whole karma teaching and people could appear in the hells and in buddha-fields randomly. It is good to wish others happiness and liberation, but ordinary people still suffer regardless of how many fully enlightened beings reside in the world.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 18th, 2014 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Applied Wisdom
Content:
seeker242 said:
Huineng must have had a good reason to lock the library.

Jikan said:
Yes, I'm sure he did; he was trying to help those who were addicted to their studies and the rather constipated one-up-manship that can ensue from debate culture to realize their nature directly.

Astus wrote:
What seems to be somewhat hidden from people is the simple fact that all the Zen stories, and practically everything we know of Huineng and the majority of famous teachers, are found in written form, actually most of them right there in the Buddhist canon. And those Zen texts are not really actual records but rather refined literary and religious works created for an educated audience. So, Zen iconoclasm and anti-textualism is as authentic as a multimillionaire preaching about the beauties of poverty.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 17th, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Applied Wisdom
Content:
LastLegend said:
How do you do it exactly? Explain how you practice it. Thanks.

Astus wrote:
Analysing the five aggregates and six sensory fields are first of all to confirm if there is anything permanent or not. If there is nothing permanent, there is nothing to attach to and nothing to regard as self. This is realising the emptiness of self. Then by investigating the aggregates and sensory fields themselves, whether they are in any way independent or substantial, one confirms the emptiness of appearances. Longer instructions exist in many texts, like the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, Zhiyi's shorter and longer meditation manuals, etc. Here is a very brief work on it: https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/translations/examination-of-the-five-aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 16th, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Applied Wisdom
Content:
Dan74 said:
Huangpo, as we know him, is mostly invention, it would seem (see Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism by Dale S. Wright). But even as such there is no actual rejection of texts, but re-examination of the way we read them.

Astus wrote:
Blofeld's translation can be misleading, unless one is aware of the language used and its relation to the original, and if I remember correctly, that's what Wright's work addresses. The texts of Huangbo are still considerably early and authentic, even if not strictly a clear report of one man's teachings. See: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/HuangPo_Literature.html.

Dan74 said:
As I see it, the OP does not lack learning but still has many doubts about the practice and the fruit. So perhaps it is a matter of balance. Often in life it is precisely the direction that seems least likely, the part of us that gets least attention, that requires it the most. Thus a very intellectual person loath to get her hands dirty in a menial task like gardening, would really benefit from it, to use an example.

Astus wrote:
While to some extent I agree with  the idea that facing unfamiliar situations can help reflection on one's habits, when it comes to practising Buddhism it is better to follow methods one can easily use. What would be the point to ask a mute person to learn chanting sutras, or an illiterate man to study abhidharma? As I see it, the majority of Western Buddhists are educated people, therefore trained from an early age to process texts and arguments. It is out of the romantic ideal that there is a desire to move from reason to intuition and mysticism, while at the same time arguing how Buddhism is a very rational doctrine (Kalama Sutta, et al).

Dan74 said:
'Safe and traditional' and 'analysis' are not the words I would use to describe Buddhist practice. There is nothing safe about discarding habitual patterns - it is indeed the opposite of safe. We cling to habitual patterns out of the instinctual craving for safety and control and discarding them, laying down the narratives and plunging into the unknown now - the jump off the 100-foot pole, does not feel safe.

Astus wrote:
Using learning, understanding and investigation is rather a step by step approach, a gradual climb up the pole. Jumping off of the top can happen only once it is reached. What I'm saying here is that instead of waiting for some insight to happen through doing mostly unrelated practices, one should go straight to investigating the nature of phenomena.

Dan74 said:
Analysis, as it is ordinarily used, doesn't reveal emptiness to us, even though it might convince us of the correctness of a certain philosophical position. Emptiness is realised, the way I see it (which is hazy and limited), by virtue of insight into reification (thing-making, me-making, mine-making, of owning mental objects, of intoxication by mental objects) and the step behind it so to speak, the not-knowing that is most intimate.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is realised through looking into the experience at hand by following the correct method. And that method is analysing whether there is anything real one can grasp or not. Once the unreality of things is realised there is no more place for reification.

Dan74 said:
So learning can point the way, contemplating the teachings can point the way, but the way needs to be tread. And for that concepts, including Dharma concepts, need to be set aside.

Astus wrote:
Quite the contrary. It is through learning and understanding that one can apply the knowledge in one's experience. If it had to be put aside it would mean there is no use to it at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 16th, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Title: Re: Applied Wisdom
Content:
LastLegend said:
How do you put correct analysis in practice? Is it the practice itself? How do you apply this correct analysis?

Astus wrote:
It is the practice and application itself, investigating the nature of experience and confirming directly the truth of the Buddha's teaching.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 16th, 2014 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Applied Wisdom
Content:
seeker242 said:
Do you think Huangbo and his like would disagree? After all he says "If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything.".

Astus wrote:
"learn only how to avoid seeking" is something that requires learning. And what is there to learn from but the teachings of the Buddha? Those teachings are what one can learn from the scriptures. So, what Huangbo basically says is to use the teachings for one's and others' welfare instead of just satisfying one's intellectual appetite.

What I'm trying to highlight here is less about the importance of studying the sutras and shastras but how using correct analysis is the safe, traditional and direct path of insight that connects the teachings with practice and at the same time is understandable and open to everyone. And in fact even such seemingly non-analytical methods like Zen include analysis, as one needs to realise the emptiness of appearances in order to be free from them.

See what Mazu says (and quotes from the Vimalakirti Sutra),

"Just put an end to all mental calculations of the triple world. If one originates a single deluded thought, this is the root of birth and death in the triple world. If one simply lacks a single thought, then he excises the root of birth and death and obtains the supreme treasure of the dharma-king. Since countless kalpas, the deluded thoughts of ordinary man—flattery, deception, self-intoxication, and arrogance—have formed the one body. Therefore, the sutra says, ‘It is only by many dharmas that this body is aggregated. When arising, it is only dharmas arising; when extinguishing, it is only dharmas extinguishing.’ When the dharma arises, it does not say ‘I arise’; when the dharma extinguishes, it does not say ‘I extinguish.’ The former thought, the later thought, and the present thought — all successive moments of thought do not wait for one another, and all successive moments of thought are quiescent and extinct. This is called the ocean-seal samadhi, which contains all dharmas."
(The Hongzhou School, p 126)

Compare that to Kamalashila:

"Analyze that, just like the mind, the nature of all phenomena, too, is like an illusion. In this way, when the identity of the mind is specifically examined by wisdom,in the ultimate sense it is perceived neither within nor without. It is also not perceived in the absence of both. Neither the mind of the past, nor that of the future, nor that of the present, is perceived. When the mind is born, it comes from nowhere, and when it ceases it goes nowhere because it is inapprehensible, undemonstrable, and non-physical."
(Stages of Meditation, p 131-132)

And to the http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html:

"to know the appearances of a self means not to be captivated by it. Not knowing and not being captivated by anything is what Buddhas know. The inconceivable [state of] not knowing and not being captivated by anything is what Buddhas know. ... The inconceivable state is what Buddhas know, such as neither grasping nor not grasping, seeing neither the appearance of past, present, or future, nor the appearance of coming or going, and grasping neither birth nor death, neither cessation nor perpetuity, neither arising nor acting. This knowledge is called the true wisdom-knowledge, the inconceivable wisdom-knowledge."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 13th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Applied Wisdom
Content:
Astus wrote:
It may appear that scriptures and reasoning have little relevance to practice. There is even the commonly used pair of "scholars and practitioners" (cf. AN 6.46). In East Asian Mahayana they talk about the meditation and the teaching schools. In Tibetan Buddhism there are the panditas and the yogis. And for some reason Westerners often prefer what they believe to be practice oriented (practical) paths. So, I'd like to raise a case here for the view that the study of the Buddhadharma necessarily consists of learning (reading/listening), understanding (reasoning) and confirming (analysing), thus making the studying of the scriptures directly relevant to whatever meditative practice one may do.

"What is correct contemplation? This is the contemplation of the Bodhisattva who, with a very good understanding of the definitive and provisional meanings of the scriptures, will have no doubts about.them, and thus thereby the meditation will be certain. Otherwise, riding on the swinging rope of doubt, there will be no certainty, and, like a traveler at the junction of two roads, one cannot decide which way to go."
(The Stages of Meditation by Vimalamitra, tr Lozang Jamspal, p 13)

"Those who do not meditate with wisdom by analyzing the entity of things specifically, but merely meditate on the elimination of mental activity, cannot avert conceptual thoughts and also cannot realize identitylessness because they lack the light of wisdom."
(The Dalai Lama: Stages of Meditation, p 134)

"An indispensable prerequisite for insight is to use the wisdom gained through study and reflection to develop knowledge of reality. For without a decisive view of how things exist, you cannot develop insight that knows the real nature, emptiness."
(Tsong-kha-pa: The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, vol 3, p 111)

"That one should not be reflectie, should not grasp, and should not discriminate - as the sutras teach - really means that one should not be reflective of the existence of inherent nature, should not grasp it, and should not discriminate it. It does not mean one should cultivate prajna by not remembering, not thinking, and not discriminating. If all discriminations are attachments, then would the wisdom that comes from listening, thinking, and practicing as taught by the Buddha not be distorted? if nondiscriminating wisdom could arise without the requisite awakening of wisdom from listening, thinking, and practicing, then it would arise without a cause."
(Yin-shun: The Way to Buddhahood, p 299)

"In general, Buddhism provides a large variety of skillful means to generate insight into the true nature of mind and phenomena, but analytical meditation is the way in which this insight is developed and enhanced in a very systematic and thorough way."
(Karl Brunnhölzl: The Center of the Sunlit Sky, p 273)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Root text in verse accompanied by autocommentary
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think the style goes back to how the Vedas are commented upon in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 4th, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Study Guides & Commentaries
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here I only mention some Mahayana sutra commentaries, but Theravada teachers published (book & online) even more on the Nikayas.


https://books.google.hu/books?id=v5-0LLlNNTEC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=bQ7P7buVH74C
https://books.google.hu/books?id=Xn8pAwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=n0A6AwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=PeBWAAAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=Yx-KvflFhV0C
https://books.google.hu/books?id=fHPjEP23D4YC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=kGcwG9YrrL4C

https://books.google.hu/books?id=HKgWxoLk0V8C
https://books.google.hu/books?id=XH0JAAAAYAAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=pCHvfGyBtf4C

https://books.google.hu/books?id=fslSW2tBG8UC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=uXB1a6_dFBQC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=jzzRtAsCbekC

https://books.google.hu/books?id=8WZgR7gDTtYC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=NR79g-BT2AcC

https://books.google.hu/books?id=1wHYAAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=T3jIh-xPVhIC

https://books.google.hu/books?id=GVeLJ16emHUC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=xe4GAAAAYAAJ

https://books.google.hu/books?id=k1l9dUewsKgC

https://books.google.hu/books?id=Yfuv-zFB1PoC

https://books.google.hu/books?id=dYw5q40gCg8C

https://books.google.hu/books?id=u0nyhBMsQtUC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=yRnOPXXQE5AC


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 4th, 2014 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: "a bridge round like a ball" --Chozen-Ji Canon
Content:
Astus wrote:
Did a little online search for: "丸橋の道", "円橋の道", "丸橋之道", "円橋之道", "まろばしのみち"
No results.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Advice on Vajrayana and Rigpa meditation books
Content:
Astus wrote:
Further recommendations:

Sutra:

https://books.google.com/books?id=68sGSKdE1OUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=3g34_5impnUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=g6m7T7v6tiYC

Tantra:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WQojn90vLA0C
https://books.google.com/books?id=sy2QAwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=4e7cAB1tO68C
https://books.google.com/books?id=tysQyPivYusC


Dzogchen series (good overview):

https://books.google.com/books?id=II0dAgAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=_o3QDa536ikC
https://books.google.com/books?id=r7Zr2Eyms4YC

Dzogchen:

https://books.google.com/books?id=LwS6RjZWd7QC
https://books.google.com/books?id=9gbrPjsEaVMC
https://books.google.com/books?id=cz0RAQAAIAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=TDFTD6HRCU8C
https://books.google.com/books?id=Kj5QE-Tw6YkC
https://books.google.com/books?id=kPNRbhvNWG4C

Scholarship:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SJbxvDZOZz8C
https://books.google.com/books?id=vM5ivXPmxwoC
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tv_hE200rNkC

Biography:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_yo1BGZXODEC
https://books.google.com/books?id=b344o95F-WEC


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I should add, it can also be the power of an object such as a statue, book, incense, stupa, etc., to induce the same effect. But again, there is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing".

Astus wrote:
Yes, that is what I wanted to clarify. Inspiration from buddhas, bodhisattvas, teachers, places, objects, etc. are easily understandable and quite common even outside of religious context. Blessing as a power/authority transferred magically is a different matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Malcolm said:
"Blessing" here just means the power of one person to inspire another to follow the path in some way. That's all. There is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing". If there was, the Buddha, being compassionate, would have blessed us all into nirvana long ago.

Astus wrote:
That makes sense. Thank you.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
muni said:
The solidity, the object-subject can fade by blessings, while blessings are themselves an example of no separation ( the idea being a subject and an object).

Astus wrote:
So what you mean is that when one is blessed by another person (or object), that individual will realise non-duality?

At the same time, blessing exists only as non-duality, what is something difficult for me to understand, because the ultimate nature of reality has the single taste of suchness and in that there is no place for giving or receiving anything, thus the word blessing appears to be meaningless.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
muni said:
Blessings exist - does not exist; they are like nature: dependent-empty. An idea of a self makes this dependence-emptiness impossible.
It is also possible to call it a moment of openness, “to receive” the blessings.

There is the Zen cup, which must be empty, or the Master tells you to come back when "your cup" is empty.

Blessings are clear examples of intangible nature.

Astus wrote:
Heat, beauty, anger, vapour and radio transmission are all intangible as well, but they are not the same type of things as Excalibur, Narnia or the motherly grace of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
This is why I asked if you are looking for an objective phenomenon called "blessing".

Astus wrote:
If things like money, stupa, bliss and hunger count as objective phenomena, then yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
muni said:
As long as me is there, as a solid independent wall - opposing another wall (person), the flow cannot flow.

So is it that nature like it is arises from itself by faith and devotion, ánd the blessings of Awaken Nature.

Astus wrote:
If blessing had existed only when there was no attachment to the idea of a self, it would have had no meaning because then there would be no attachment whatsoever thus no need for further liberation. Unless you equate blessing with enlightenment or ultimate reality.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 5:32 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Byin rlabs means quite literally "conferral [rlabs] of power [byin]."

Byin is defined in Tibetan as "the ability or power to transform the minds and vision/appearances of another."

The word Byin rlabs is defined in Tibetan as "the power to remain in any subject of the Dharma of the Noble Path."

Astus wrote:
Thank you. Does that mean then that a blessing is inducing insight/realisation/enlightenment in another being directly (instead of through giving instructions)? If so, what is being communicated/transferred between one being/thing to another? What connection exists at the time of receiving a blessing?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
You are looking for an objective phenomenon called blessing?

Astus wrote:
I'm looking for a usable definition that describes the way blessing exists and functions. As for "objective phenomena", that's a different discussion about the nature of reality, perception, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 2nd, 2014 at 3:56 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
anjali said:
Perhaps this will be useful. From Rigpa Wiki's entry on http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Blessing

Astus wrote:
Both definitions are about achieving or developing a state of mind, and as such I don't see the connection to the idea of receiving blessing from other beings (or objects, places, etc.). If those were the meaning of blessing, then blessing would be synonymous with insight and correct effort.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 2nd, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let me give an example for the blessing I'm asking about.

in Vision and Violence (p 107-109) Carl S. Yamamoto said:
In many ways, the English word “blessing” is simply not adequate to capture the full import of the Tibetan term byin rlabs. Byin rlabs is something that comes from direct contact with a buddha or a realized lama, and is often spoken of almost as a quasi-physical substance—or energy—that passes from the lama to the disciple at certain key moments.
...
Sometimes a blessing is like an electric shock delivered to the body of the recipient. Other times, the body is paralyzed or goes limp.
Blessings are also thought to inhere in sacred objects and places, particularly ones that have a connection with an exalted figure.
...
It is this locally concentrated blessing energy that makes a place or object sacred, so that when pilgrims visit a holy site, or when lamas perform rituals centered on a consecrated object, one of their goals is to share in the blessing that resides in that site or object.
...
Though it lacks this important connotation of power, “blessing” seems to be the only translation of byin rlabs that fits all of its usages reasonably well. Still, some scholars have offered coinages that work well in particular situations. Lama Yeshe offers “inspiration,” Geoffrey Samuel “blessingpower” and “positive spiritual energy,” and David Jackson “spiritual impulse,” while Toni Huber suggests “empowerment,” which he says “fits better with most Tibetan conceptions of the term.” These translations— while not adequate substitutes for “blessing” as an all-purpose stand-in—do capture the sense of a dynamic and personal power that emanates from the lama to the disciple, charging body and mind with spiritual energy and inspirational zeal.
Indeed, as Huber points out, the notion of byin rlabs as “power” pervades all sectors of Tibetan culture and may in fact have its origins in the political realm. Though it is traditionally glossed as a Buddhist term,
translating the Sanskrit word adhiṣṭāna, it in fact has a pre-Buddhist meaning, associated with the kings of the early Tibetan royal cult
...
In this sense, as a bridge between the political realm, represented by divine kingship, and the religious, represented by the spiritual power of the lama, the term “charisma” might not be an entirely inappropriate rendering of byin rlabs.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 1st, 2014 at 10:12 PM
Title: What is Blessing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is the definition of blessing (any and all types)? What dharma is it? What are its qualities and conditions?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 30th, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Does this mean we use no effort or intention because things appear as the are? Flow like the Dao with no blockage? A medium that connects with everything else?

Astus wrote:
It is effortless if one has the clear realisation that appearances are without anything to grasp.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 26th, 2014 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
Alex123 said:
And how to realize that?

Astus wrote:
The answer to that is the complete teaching of the Buddha. Within that vast amount of methods there are the Zen techniques. And among Zen techniques there is the option to directly look at your mind - your complete realm of experience - and see whether there is any concrete, stable thing you can identify and grasp or not. And once you let all experiences appear as they are, you can see for yourself that they are ungraspable. In fact, letting them appear and seeing their ungraspability are one and the same. Letting things be as they are is the same as not seeking anything to rely on.

It is when one cannot just, so to say, relax, let go and open up, that all the methods from sitting posture, phrase contemplation and all the other skilful means come into the picture. They give some reason to stop grasping at ideas and feelings, or rather they are substitutes to the normal objects of attachment, however, they are still attachments and delusions. But unlike ordinary delusions, they might help one get over all clinging and false concepts.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 26th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
Alex123 said:
Right, and how does one reach state where grasping doesn't occur?

Astus wrote:
Through realising that there is nothing to grasp.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
Alex123 said:
I understand that I can't control mental states and that holding onto a certain state is futile. What often happens is that I can't seem to remember not to be abiding anywhere. This is a problem. I can't seem to always remember and do Hishiryo, etc.   I wonder why.

Astus wrote:
You say that holding onto a certain state is futile, then you call it a problem that you can't always do hishiryo. Isn't there a contradiction?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 24th, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Anders said:
The point of Buddhahood is how much more capable of a Buddha is of helping other beings. If we're just talking about depth of realisation and how that realisation looks to the one attaining it, there is no point of even having a Mahayana.

Astus wrote:
And the point of the teaching of buddha-nature (and even prajnaparamita) is that the magical powers are inherent in the nature of mind, in other words, emptiness is inseparable from dependent origination and compassion. That's how the only true enlightenment is that of the buddhas and everything else is a mistake.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 24th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Anders said:
The point the lotus sutra makes is basically that the 'seed of bodhi' can not be burned out. Hence, Arhats can continue on the path of Buddhahood despite having ended the afflictions and Buddhas likewise can continue to emanate bodies after their provisional "Parinirvana".

That said, the notion of individual Buddhas does look somewhat less true than it's conventional presentation.

Astus wrote:
Everybody can reach buddhahood, and buddhahood is the dharmadhatu, emptiness. Thus the arhat is the example of the practitioner who understands emptiness as annihilation and not as dependent origination, thus the parable of the illusory city.

As for individual buddhas, since the notion of individuality is about self, and enlightenment is realising the lack of self, the concept of individual buddhas is only a provisional skilful means.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 24th, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think that reading the idea of eternal buddha as an immortal being is at best a provisional teaching. What in my view the eternity of Shakyamuni points to is no different from what Vimalakirti said to Ananda:

"You should understand, Ānanda, the bodies of the Tathāgatas are bodies of the Dharma, not bodies of longing. The Buddha is the World-honored One, who has transcended the triple world. The Buddha’s body is without flaws, the flaws having been extinguished. The Buddha’s body is unconditioned and does not fit the [conventional] analytic categories."

And as the Diamond Sutra teaches:

"Someone who tries to discern me in form
Or seek me in sound
Is practicing non-Buddhist methods
And will not discern the Tathāgata"

In other words, emptiness is the true nature of the Buddha (cf. SN 44.2), and that is eternal.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 17th, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: What is your moment-to-moment Zen practice?
Content:
Astus wrote:
My not so moment-to-moment Zen:

When there is greed, see it as greed. When there is anger, see it as anger. When there is jealousy, see it as jealousy. When there is pride, see it as pride. When there is doubt, see it as doubt. When there is anxiety and agitation, see it as anxiety and agitation. When there is laziness and lethargy, see it as laziness and lethargy. Whatever affliction occurs, once recognised as such, see what is the allure, what is the danger and what is the escape.

When there is something to do, try not to think about something else to do. When there is nothing to do, try not to think about something else to do.

Remember that as long as there is food to eat, clothes to wear and a bed to sleep in, I am already rich. Remember that the time of death is uncertain. Remember that whatever I have I can also lose. Remember that wisdom without compassion is not wisdom.

As all experiences are ungraspable and unstoppable, there is nothing to be afraid of and nothing to hope for.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 11th, 2014 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Khyentse on the importance of Mahayana
Content:
Unknown said:
hey have at least four malas around their neck, and they love to talk about power and magnetizing wealth. Their view often seems to be founded on a rather superstitious cast of mind. Whereas those who have first practised Mahayana seriously have a very mature and refined approach to practising the Vajrayana.

Astus wrote:
What the above seems to say is that when Vajrayana is used for worldly purposes, it is nothing but a system of magic techniques, whereas with the motivation of enlightenment it is a means of the bodhisattva path. However, I think most Westerners don't believe in magic anyway, so the mistakes about Vajrayana are different.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 7th, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Chan and Pure land
Content:
Astus wrote:
The merit of any practice can be dedicated to birth in the Pure Land. What matters is the intention behind the practice. While the recitation of the name is the simplest and easiest method for strengthening one's faith in Amitabha's vow, it is possible to use other techniques.

Chan is somewhat different. It is a http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/hwadu/content_view.asp?cat_seq=118&content_seq=26&page=1 to use http://www.undv.org/vesak2012/iabudoc/04RBuswellFINAL.pdf 's http://terebess.hu/zen/great_doubt.pdf as the basis of one's practice. This is summed up in the question "Who is mindful of the buddha?" (念佛是誰？) when it is combined with the practice of reciting the name. Here we could say that the recitation itself is the calming (samatha) part, and the investigation (kanhua 看話) is the insight (vipasyana) part, thus it follows the traditional gradual path.

The other Chan method is called the "Real Mark Buddha Recitation" (實相念佛). It is described by Cheng Wei-an as the 31st method in http://www.ymba.org/books/taming-monkey-mind-guide-pure-land-practice/forty-eight-aspects-buddha-recitation, and the three techniques preceding it are useful preliminaries. Practically speaking, this is the direct path of sudden enlightenment, the immediate realisation of buddha-mind. Therefore, it is not really a method but liberation itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 3rd, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: The Single Solution of Honen and Dogen
Content:
kirtu said:
Yes, it is meditation as we understand it today.  It is not analytical meditation, that is certainly true.

Astus wrote:
What is meant by meditation?

Honen uses 觀念 (kannen), and that refers to the visualisation or contemplation practices as it is (was) commonly used by Pure Land practitioners.
Dogen uses 習禅 (shuuzen), and that refers to the dhyana practices, what is often called calming the mind.

Kannen-nenbutsu (観念念仏) is discarded in favour of kusho-nenbutsu (口称念仏), that is, the oral recitation of the name (持名念佛).
https://fukan-zazengi.blogspot.com/2007/09/shuzen-ni-arazu-not-end-gaining-zen.html defines shuuzen as an "end-gaining" approach. https://susuddho.blogspot.com/2012/05/issho-fujita-zazen-is-not-shuzen.html calls it aspiring to "achieve a human ideal" and "an effort to control the mind and attain a certain state of mind by applying a certain method".

Honen's nenbutsu is not meditation, it is literally the repeating of the name, and does not require maintaining or achieving any special state of mind. Dogen's zazen is not meditation, as it is not training in anything nor meant as a method. In both cases the context is what is categorised under either samyag-samadhi or dhyana-paramita, and samadhi as the second element of the threefold training. If they were actually meditative practices, then all the other claims regarding their teaching would prove false and unfounded.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: The Single Solution of Honen and Dogen
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to me that these two fundamental texts display very similar ideas. Not in what they teach as the essential method, but regarding the role and importance of that method. Please consider the followings and let's discuss it.

http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/WRITINGS/ichimai.html (written in 1212, Honen's last writing)
http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/advice/fukanzanzeng.html (written in 1227, Dogen's first writing)

It is not meditation.
In China and Japan, many Buddhist masters and scholars understand that the nembutsu is to meditate deeply on Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. However, I do not understand the nembutsu in this way.

The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice.
Not based on study or understanding.
Reciting the nembutsu does not come from studying and understanding its meaning.

put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases ... Give up the operations of mind, intellect, and consciousness; stop measuring with thoughts, ideas, and views.
It is a self-sufficient practice.
There is no other reason or cause by which we can utterly believe in attaining birth in the Pure Land than the nembutsu itself.

Practice-realization is naturally undefiled.
It is a practice complete in itself and encompasses everything else.
Reciting the nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally gives rise to the three minds (sanjin) and the four modes of practice (shishu).

Although they say that there are ten thousand distinctions and a thousand variations, they just wholeheartedly engage the way in zazen.
This is all one needs to know and do.
If I am witholding any deeper knowledge beyond simple recitation of the nembutsu, then may I lose sight of the compassion of Shakyamuni and Amida Buddha and slip through the embrace of Amida's original vow.

Please, honored followers of Zen, long accustomed to groping for the elephant, do not doubt the true dragon. Devote your energies to the way of direct pointing at the real. Revere the one who has gone beyond learning and is free from effort. Accord with the enlightenment of all the buddhas; succeed to the samadhi of all the ancestors.
Everybody can do it.
Even if those who believe in the nembutsu deeply study all the teachings which Shakyamuni taught during his life, they should not put on any airs and should practice the nembutsu with the sincerity of those untrained followers ignorant of Buddhist doctrines.

This being the case, intelligence or lack of it is not an issue; make no distinction between the dull and the sharp-witted. If you concentrate your effort single-mindedly, that in itself is wholeheartedly engaging the way.
This is the essence of the tradition.
I hereby authorize this document with my hand print. The Jodo Shu way of the settled mind (anjin) is completely imparted here. I, Genku, have no other teaching than this.

It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice realization of totally culminated enlightenment. It is the koan realized; traps and snares can never reach it. If you grasp the point, you are like a dragon gaining the water, like a tiger taking to the mountains.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
seeker242 said:
I would agree with all of that but would add that just because anyone can see that, does not necessarily mean that they do see that. If one can see for themselves that thoughts don't stay around and they cannot even be held up or kept, then one would not try to hold them up or keep them to begin with. But people do try to hold them up and keep them, which means they can't see they are already empty as they are.

Astus wrote:
Trying to keep a thought is itself not seeing. Not keeping a thought is seeing. What you call seeing but keeping is conceptualisation.

"A single moment’s stupidity and prajñā is eradicated, a single moment’s wisdom and prajñā is generated. The people of this world are stupid and deluded and do not see prajñā. They speak of prajñā in their mouths but are always stupid in their minds. They always say to themselves, ‘I am cultivating prajñā.’ In every moment of thought they speak of emptiness, without recognizing true emptiness.
...
To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body. ... With a preceding moment of deluded thought, one was an ordinary person, but with a succeeding moment of enlightened thought, one is a buddha. To be attached to one’s sensory realms in a preceding moment of thought is affliction, but to transcend the realms in a succeeding moment of thought is bodhi."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, p 30, tr McRae)

"Within continuing moments of thought one should not think of the previous [mental] realm. If one thinks of the previous thought, the presentthought, and the later thought, one’s thoughts will be continuous without cease. This is called ‘fettered.’ If one’s thoughts do not abide in the dharmas, this is to be ‘unfettered.’ Thus it is that nonabiding is taken as the fundamental."
(ch 4, p 43)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
LastLegend said:
Ok. If mind is not seeing, what is it doing then? Clear perception all the time?

Astus wrote:
Is your question "What if mind is not seeing itself?" If yes: it is not that there is a seer and a seen, but that the wrong views and attachments are not present any more. If no: please clarify.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
LastLegend said:
Are you talking about maintaining this view all the time or you talking about the mind seeing itself clearly all the time? There is still some training for the latter case.

Astus wrote:
Neither maintaining nor seeing. Seeing emptiness means not being fooled by appearances, not superimposing, not projecting an essentialist view. Once the mistake has been removed there is only clear perception.

"If you know the illusions and are separated from them, then you will not create expedient means. If you are separated from illusions and are awakened, then also there will be no (need for) gradual stages."
(Hyujeong: Seonga gwigam, §34; Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 3, p. 100)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 25th, 2014 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
seeker242 said:
I don't see the OP statement as a negation of thoughts, but rather simply a non-affirmation of their existence. A non-affirmation quite different from a negation. With simply a non-affirmation, rather than a negation, there can be a middle, so to speak, that is neither affirming or denying either existence or non-existence. "Thoughts don't truly exist" IMO is really just another way of saying "thoughts are emptiness". Seems to me that emptiness can't have existence or non-existence applied to it, because if it could, it would no longer be emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means empty of permanence, of essence, of self. That is, thoughts are conditioned and impermanent. Anyone can see for themselves that thoughts don't stay around and they cannot even be held up or kept. One can also see in their first hand experience how thoughts define everything we do and experience. So, once there is certainty that thoughts come and go without any hindrance, there is no need even to train one's mind. In other words, they are already empty as they are.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 24th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Which is, perhaps, why that teacher said that intelligence and thought are not the same thing - intelligence being what 'sees that'.

Astus wrote:
A seer/knower separate from thoughts couldn't even be aware of thoughts. Such an ultimate seer is the mistaken belief in a self, an incorrect thought.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 24th, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Isn't seeing through thought,  the whole point of the higher states of dhyana? These consist of going beyond discursive thought, don't they? That is why they are described as 'domains of neither perception nor non-perception', and the like.

Astus wrote:
From the second dhyana on there is no applied and sustained thought, that is, extra mental effort to keep the meditation object. The immaterial dhyanas are various levels of mental objects for the meditation. The (almost) complete cessation of mental processes happens only with the ninth dhyana (nirodha-samapatti). However, insight into the unreality of thoughts don't occur out of merely attaining any of those states, they are still bound to samsara. In fact, all mental states are conditioned and impermanent. Seeing that is the insight into their unreality.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
oushi said:
I think that we all are perfectly aware of the fact that phenomena that we experience are not permanent.

Astus wrote:
To believe that there is anything enduring from one moment to the next, that is the belief in true existence, in permanence.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Obscuration.

Astus wrote:
Is that different from ignorance? If so, how?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
seeker242 said:
Although, if you define "understanding" as mere intellectual understanding, I don't think that's good enough.

Astus wrote:
What understanding is enough? I think the stages of learning, understanding and applying are still valid here.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 6:59 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
oushi said:
It's easy to say, but what does it actually mean that something "don't truly exist"?

Astus wrote:
That it seems reliable only as long as one does not look into it. True existence is something permanent, something one can attach to, identify with, possess. It means a thought stays for ever as it is. However, thoughts don't do that. We only imagine that thoughts are hidden in our mind or exist on another realm, but that is just our imagination. In actual experience thoughts cannot be grasped.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Title: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche posted the following on 21 June:
If you see thoughts don't truly exist you are no longer a Buddhist, you are actually a Buddha.
Therefore, if you see for yourself that there is not a single thought that could be held on, you are enlightened.

What is there to stop one from this realisation?

Is it a matter of habit? Is it ignorance? Is it a lack of will?

If it is habit, one needs to clarify that the assumption of a self is based only on false thoughts. Habit needs repetition
If it is ignorance, once one understands that thoughts are unreal, the mistake won't happen again.
If it is lack of will, one has to learn that there is suffering only because the objects of attachment are illusory thoughts.

Seeing the unreality of thoughts then should be a remedy for all problems.
Is it? Is it not? Why?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Untraditional zazen?
Content:
kirtu said:
The difference is that meditating on certain points on the body really has different effects.

Astus wrote:
If what matters is to gain a calm, steady, concentrated mind, then practically any meditation object can be used as long as it works. The 40 kammatthana are as good as all the peaceful and wrathful deities. However, Huineng's tradition is not about developing a serene mind and gaining various levels of one pointedness. Although, it could be said that if one wants to master samatha, one might as well follow some reliable path for that.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Untraditional zazen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are all sorts of methods that people call zazen. How is it different if you focus on your belly or your head? It is still something you focus on. And if you prefer your head, or your toe, or whatever, that's fine as long as it helps you gain some level of relaxed concentration. Once you are relaxed and focused at the same time, you can then start to go to the next level.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Cognitive Surplus and its Discontents
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think the very idea that one wants to spend one's time on useful things is a symptom of uneasiness. Of course I agree that creating problems is pointless, but 90% of what modern people do are mostly a pretension of being useful, maintaining a false image of productivity and/or creativity. The other 10% is related to maintaining one's physical existence. It is only natural that an unruly mind cannot rest. And that is cognitive surplus. No wonder that there are hundreds of volumes of Buddhist scriptures and other works.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Instantaneous awakening.
Content:
theanarchist said:
Nope, non-thought can also be a temporary result of shamata practice which does not equal with liberation/awakening.

And an awakened person can and will have thoughts. But unlike us the awakened/liberated person will have direct realisation that neither the thoughts nor any other phenomenon have a solid reality. That insight is in sutrayana archieved by vipassana practice.

As long as you cling to non thought you are definitely not liberated.

Astus wrote:
Non-thought (wunian/munen) is not lack of thoughts, nor a temporary result of any calming practice.

The Sixth Patriarch taught:

"Nonthought is to be without thought in the context of thoughts."
(Platform Sutra, ch 4; p 43; tr McRae)

"in wisdom’s contemplation both interior and exterior are clearly penetrated, and one recognizes one’s own fundamental mind. If you recognize your fundamental mind, this is the fundamental emancipation. And if you attain emancipation, this is the samādhi of prajñā, this is nonthought.
What is nonthought? If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations.
...
to be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is for the myriad dharmas to be completely penetrated. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to see the realms of [all] the buddhas. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(ch 2; p 33, 34)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 5:27 PM
Title: Re: Instantaneous awakening.
Content:
Astus wrote:
The constant excuse for saying anything shows some uncertainty regarding what instantaneous awakening is. However, Chan teachers, starting with Heze Shenhui, were quite clear about it that non-thought is all there is to realise. That there is nothing that could be grasped/attained, everything is originally empty, the mind is pure from the beginning - these were all known teachings well before the emergence of Chan. The difference between gradual and instantaneous lies in how the gradual path gives a step by step instruction to how to reach non-attachment, while the direct path is just not attaching to anything. That's how there is actually no such thing as sudden enlightenment, as it all depends on the individual's qualities. Either one understands it immediately or not. And even if there is a clear realisation that the six sensory impressions are insubstantial, it is easy to fall back to one's habitual clinging to phenomena, thus many Chan teachers emphasised continuous training, or the so called "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice" format.

So, how is there instantaneous awakening? One only needs to observe the emerging and disappearing phenomena of sights, sounds, feelings and thoughts to confirm that there is nothing anywhere in one's realm of experience that stays even for a moment, so there is nothing to hold on to or reject. Why is this information/instruction useless most of the time? Because knowing how to observe is already a technique one learns through calming the mind and detaching from constant conceptualisation. Because even if one can personally confirm that all sorts of identification and clinging are false and mistaken, that attachment is the true source of dissatisfaction and suffering, as a result of habits one easily forgets about all that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Female Dzogchen or Mahamudra Teachers
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://tenzinpalmo.com/tenzin_palmo/biography.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
smcj said:
The mirror transcends the images.

Astus wrote:
Can there be images without the mirror? If yes, then they are independent external things and not images. If no, then they are mutually dependent, or the two extremes of mirror (subject) and images (object) don't exist. What does "transcends" exactly mean?

smcj said:
"All phenomena are mental appearances" is the Cittamatra perspective.

Astus wrote:
Just as the four wisdoms and the eight consciousnesses are Yogacara teachings. Vasubandhu explains how phenomena are mere representations of consciousness (vijnapti-matra) in his Vimsatika-karika.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
LastLegend said:
So it's like you can pick it up, you can put it down.
But where does compassion, morals, precepts, etc fit into all of this?

Astus wrote:
Compassion is the wish to help. Wisdom is to know where and how. Correct action is the manifestation of compassion and wisdom. That's why both picking up and putting down are required. If nirvana is dropping everything, leaving behind all intention and comprehension, becoming a natural force, an automaton, then it is rather a fictional abstraction than anything realisable by humans.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that none of those images are happening in the mirror.

Astus wrote:
Then what is the relationship between the images and the mirror? Before enlightenment all phenomena are mental appearances, after enlightenment they are somehow not?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Dan74 said:
The motivation is natural response to the causes and conditions, like reaching for the pillow, like branches bending in the wind, except it is illumined by the clear light of wisdom and unswayed by the ideas of self and other obstructions.

Astus wrote:
I think this word "natural" only covers for a lack of clear discernment of what function (yong 用) means. Jinul writes: "That which is able to see, hear, sense, and know is perforce your buddha-nature." (Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind in "Collected Works of Korean Buddhism", vol 2, p 208) If we argue that one should abandon the present mind and find a new one that is without all the common activities of a human being, then in fact we are saying "this mind is not buddha", and there is no explanation for such simple things like eating and sleeping. However, if we confirm that "this mind is buddha", where lies the distinction between enlightened and unenlightened? (Jinul writes (p 224): "The only thing that makes them different is that
they can protect their minds and thoughts, nothing more.") If it is the same body and same mind but without attachment, that vanished attachment cannot be responsible for one's daily activities but only for being dissatisfied with them. One shouldn't only be able to let go everything but also to hold on anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But this contradicts the very sutra he is citing

Astus wrote:
Maybe not. As your quote says: "there is the appearance of many kinds of reflected images in the circle of a mirror". Xuanzang doesn't equate alayavijnana with darsanajnana, but describes the way the mirror wisdom works. There are various dharmas, there are mental functions, especially the ripening of good seeds. As a mirror, reflects everything but hindered by nothing.

"The mental attributes associated with the Great Mirror Wisdom (Mahadarsajnana) : 
The mind associated with this Wisdom is entirely dissociated from all mental discriminations (vikalpa). [According to the Buddhabhumisastra, in this mind there is neither discrimination between atmagraha and atmiyagraha nor discrimination between grahyagraha and grahakagraha.] Its objects of perception and modes of activity are subtle and 'difficult to comprehend'. It carries all objects without failure of memory (because its objects are eternally present)l and without error (because it is never troubled or obscured).2 In its essential nature and characteristics it is pure (i.e., clear and good), being free from all impurities and confused states (samklesa) . It is the supporting basis for absolute qualities (superior to the pure qualities of non-Buddhas) which are pure (i.e., superior to impure qualities) and perfect (i.e., superior to the qualities of the two Vehicles) ; it is the receptacle of the Bijas of these qualities. It manifests the images of other Jnanas (which themselves are born of their Bijas) ; it gives birth to bodies and lands. Without interruption, universally and eternally, like a great mirror, it manifests the images of all Rupas."
(p 767-769)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Whatever the case may be, Buddhas do not have operations of vijñāna. They do not possess the eight consciousnesses because all the traces that constitute the ālayavijñāna are exhausted, thus there is no basis for the arising of the other seven.

Astus wrote:
It seems to me that there are only some differences between consciousness and wisdom. For example, there are various mental functions going on according to Xuanzang:

"Thus, the mind associated with the four Wisdoms (Jnanas) forms in each case a simultaneous group of at least twenty-two dharmas (the mind itself, five universal Caittas, five special ones, and eleven good ones). It comprises, like its Caittas, the Bhagas (that which manifests itself and that which is manifested), as well as Bijas and mental attributes in action. But the attribute of wisdom (Jnana) (which is the Prajna caitta) is particularly active. This mind is therefore indicated by the name of wisdom (Jnana)."
(Cheng Weishi Lun 9.4.5.2, p 769; tr. Wei Tat)

And explaining the Great Mirror Wisdom he quotes the Buddhabhumi Sutra:

"in the Mirror Wisdom of the Tathagata there appear all images of the six Ayatanas (eye, ear, etc.), the six Visayas (colour, sound, etc.), and the six consciousnesses (visual consciousness, auditory consciousness, etc.)."
(p 775)

But that's kind of besides the point of this thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
And what is that which can use aggregates? What is that which we know through the shape of those aggregates?

Astus wrote:
The aggregates mean all the functions and experiences there are. They are not things to be used by anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Buddhas don't have minds. They have wisdom.

Astus wrote:
The four/five wisdoms/knowledges are the eight consciousnesses without the two hindrances, or in other words, a non-attached mind. As they include all the good dharmas (either developed over the bodhisattva path or inherently in buddha-nature) and exclude all the defilements, there is no hope and fear, no like and dislike, no attachment and rejection, thus no wish to do or achieve anything. The explanation often is that buddhas are driven by their previously made vows, but that drive is only a result of past actions and not an action itself. Therefore, buddhas are like some unintentional natural force, a product of someone who worked hard and was full of aspiration but who's now gone.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Yes, so what is the problem with understanding action when it is no longer conditioned by these ideas?

Astus wrote:
What is the motivation when there is no more attraction or rejection? Or, if we say that like and dislike are not dependent on ignorance that assumes a self, then either craving is not the cause of suffering as the second noble truth says, or there is no end of suffering as in the third noble truth.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
Mind is a shape, not an actually existing entity. There is a small confusion here. When we talk about the mind, self, intention we see it as an added component of the body-skandhas thing.

Astus wrote:
When I say mind, it means the mental aggregates. There is no mind besides the aggregates in Buddhism. Intention (cetana), for instance, belongs to the fourth aggregate (samskara).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Dan74 said:
The action proceeds from causes and conditions but is not longer related to the self. No need to propitiate the non-existent self and conform to related ideas which are no longer clung to.

Astus wrote:
There has never been a self anyway, only the concept that there should be a self somewhere, so the actual function of the mind is not determined by any self, only the idea of an imaginary self is what plays a role in attributing "I and mine" to phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
Yes, we can assume that, although I don't know if we have similar understanding of your statement. As I understand it, there is no "blocking" involved.

This very involvement does not arise, and since the self in nothing more then this involvement, there is no self. Thus no mind.

Astus wrote:
That means that buddhas don't have mental aggregates, only a body. A body without mind is a corpse. Or in this case perhaps a zombie.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
Karma.
There are results of old intentions, but there is no generating of new intentions. Why? Because the generator (idea of free actor) is gone.

Astus wrote:
Then without intention there is no preceding mental action before an action, making the action unconscious. Or if you say that the mind is still involved, in what manner?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
Automatic? Depends on how you understand automatic. I would rather say independent of "you", and since this dependency is what defines "you", it's often expressed as selfless.
Unconscious? No.

Astus wrote:
Is there or is there not intention behind the action, as the cause of the action? If there is no intention, what is the cause and what is the role of consciousness? If there is intention, there is a decision, and that decision is a product of numerous mental factors, like perception, understanding and memory.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think the basic idea of 'non-doing' is expressed in theistic religions in such sayings as 'not my will but thine be done', i.e. the subject having abandoned himself, doesn't act from any personal motive or sense of self.  That also relates to the point raised earlier in this thread about 'detachment' 'equanimity' and 'apatheia' which are the ground of un-self-centred action.

Astus wrote:
Giving an external cause instead of an internal one is still being moved around by various things. Small children, soldiers and servants all do whatever they are told.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
It makes perfect sense as an act without intention. There is a subtle duality involved, that is why logic should be applied with caution.

Astus wrote:
What kind of action is without intention? If it is without intention, it is automatic, unconscious, like bodily functions and natural phenomena. It is like insentient things. It leaves no space for wisdom and compassion.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 6:04 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I am still wondering whether you simply wrote it to challenge people to look into this rather than being a question you are seriously entertaining at this stage in your practice.

Astus wrote:
I consider it a very good question to investigate. I also find the usual answers often repeated in Buddhism lacking in many ways.

Dan74 said:
It's very much a natural action as other have said, like reaching for the pillow in the night.

Astus wrote:
Reaching for the pillow at night was an example used for the compassionate action of Guanyin by Daowu. But what separates ignorant (dark) action from non-discriminating (dark) action? I think http://www.mro.org/mr/archive/24-2/articles/dogenandkoansdaido.html has something important to say when he emphasises ethics. However, that is still not enough. As long as this body and mind are negated in order to find something beyond that is peaceful and supreme (the aloof buddha), it remains impossible even to reach for that pillow.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
seeker242 said:
Curious. What do you make of Wu wei action? Or "wei wu wei"? It seems like you are saying it's just a load of BS.

Astus wrote:
It depends on what level we look at it. As a general, superficial, poetic description of unhindered non-karmic action, it is fine. But if you give it some thought, the expression of "doing without doing" or "non-doing" makes zero sense, because either there is or there is not something according to the basic principles of logic. The middle view in Buddhism is dependent origination, expressed as the unity of essence and function in East Asia, therefore assuming only a causeless substance is necessarily an extreme and wrong view. Also, once such a substance is taken to be the absolute, it is not possible to answer for activity.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Lindama said:
how do you know

Astus wrote:
Because then all people without the inclination to use their minds are living buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
kirtu said:
Is Nirvana worth it?

No of course not.  I'd much rather wander from life to life fixated upon total reactivatity and enjoying the sufferings especially of the lower realms.  Ignorance rules!

Astus wrote:
See the first sentence: "If and when someone agrees that the whole of samsara from hells to heavens is painful and unsatisfactory, liberation from it is the logical choice."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Fa Dao said:
by not being slaves to these things they are free and no longer create actions/causes/karma...its not a bland state of nothingness but a dimension of pure potentiality.....

Astus wrote:
Experiencing emotions without attachment is practically not experiencing them at all, as most of the emotions come from attachment, like feeling sorry for losing one's favourite umbrella. A dimension of pure potentiality, when there is no actuality allowed to emerge, cannot be differentiated from nothingness.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Jesse said:
When we stop grasping at ideas, emotions, thoughts it's not like they go away, or we don't feel them anymore, it just becomes a choice, and we almost form a new relationship to these things, rather than being confused and consumed by them, we exist with them in a more healthy manner.

Astus wrote:
What is that more healthy manner?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Lindama said:
huh?  no... it's more like we do the next thing.  I have already explained this.  it's not about nothing....  perhaps I was sloppy, I mean that we don't need a lot of mental constructs and reasons.

Astus wrote:
That sounds like a biorobot. I don't think anyone needs a lot of thinking to do the dishes and other daily chores. However, that is hardly the sign of living the life of an enlightened being.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Is the taste of an orange worth it? You won't know until you try it.

Astus wrote:
What makes a man taste a new food? Friends tell him it is good. An advertisement tells him it is good. It looks or smells good. Unlike food, nirvana is not something one can order online. So, why should one want nirvana? If what one gets renders the person totally content and peaceful, isn't it losing all interest in life and going on an eternal holiday?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think it comes from acting, and being, without selfish motives - which means you can do what the situation calls for, or what duty requires, without a sense of self-seeking. As such it is universally recognized in all the wisdom traditions.

Astus wrote:
Do what the situation calls for means a judgement call, and judgement requires a set of rules one follows. Duty is a good example of believing in rules. And when Arjuna massacres his relatives, it is perfectly fine according to Krishna, because that is a warriors duty. Just doing what the situation calls for. But I doubt that the Buddha would agree with Krishna.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
The idea of ​​liberated or not liberated beings is just something conceptual

If you remain imprisoned in samsara, in fact, it makes no difference from the absolute point of view.
Samsara possesses great pleasures, but also great suffering, it is a matter of whether you prefer to live in a world of illusion or seek liberation. Red pill or blue pill?

Astus wrote:
Just as all questions, all answers are conceptual as well. But without concepts there is not even the teaching, not to mention nirvana.

From that absolute point of view there is no absolute point of view, therefore even referring to an absolute point of view is a relative statement, and as such necessarily recognises a difference between absolute and relative.

If one needs to choose between relative and absolute, the final view excludes all attachments, both good and bad things. Therefore, it is no solution to the question of the activity of an enlightened being.

Vajrasvapna said:
It means to live free from attachment to hopes and fears, no matter what happens you are always well

Astus wrote:
One is always well because there is nothing that could move him. Even if there are appearances, they are perceived as pure phenomena, unlike for an ordinary human being. And that means a very solid distinction between a buddha and a common mortal, where a buddha lacks all human qualities. Thus a buddha is practically an abstract concept that feels nothing and thinks nothing.

Vajrasvapna said:
in this state compassion arises naturally

Astus wrote:
What does it mean to arise naturally? Like, without an actual cause? If so, that violates dependent origination.

Vajrasvapna said:
even if he lives as a householder, is not affected by negative emotions or ego-clinging. Understanding the void nature of ordinary worldly activities, he is neither attracted to them nor afraid of them.

Astus wrote:
As a householder one has to take care of many things. If there is no attraction, there is no cause to have a spouse, have children, have tasty food, warm rooms, etc. If there is no fear, there is no reason to have doors and locks, to wear clothes, to clean the house, etc. Or if what is meant is stronger emotional states, like love and hatred, or even mania and paranoia, then one is like some emotionless robot, just doing what should be done according to some imagined set of programs and norms.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Lindama said:
there is no cause and no effect

Astus wrote:
That means action occurs without cause, same as claiming that from nothing comes something, or there is no activity at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That should give you plenty to go on with.

Astus wrote:
See third paragraph in the OP.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
One of the attributes of nirvana, in any case, is joyousness, sukha (as distinct from dukka ). For various reasons many of the descriptive texts about Nirvana are couched in negative terms, but there are also positive descriptions, wherein it is described as 'blisfful', 'peaceful' and 'sublime'.

Astus wrote:
Once total contentment and bliss is reached, what then? There isn't any motivation left to do anything, is there?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Nirvana is seen as extinction only in the Hinayana's teachings.

Astus wrote:
A nirvana is just as empty in Mahayana as samsara. Nevertheless, one needs to realise that emptiness, and through that one is liberated from all afflictions and attachments. So, there is no difference in that nirvana is about freedom from both good and bad things. Therefore the question about the desirability of enlightenment is not resolved.

Vajrasvapna said:
The fact that a bodhisattva perceive the world as illusion, not taking his motivation for living

Astus wrote:
If someone realises that what one wants is unreal the desire to obtain it becomes pointless. If by motivation for living you mean compassion, that's a different question addressed later.

Vajrasvapna said:
Nevertheless we must try to improve our illusory life. Otherwise we will keep getting
bruised by illusory events. Since we don’t realize they’re illusions, we suffer just as if they were real

Astus wrote:
That's not an answer, as it only says one has to try to improve one's illusory life only because one fails to see it as illusory. What if it is understood clearly to be an illusion?

Vajrasvapna said:
The compassion of Buddhas and bodhisattvas originates from emptiness, when we realize that all beings possess the same empty and luminous nature, then we can generate the four immeasurable.

Astus wrote:
That is when motivation becomes external, dependent on others in stead of one's own will. That is being a puppet.

Vajrasvapna said:
The difference is that a Buddha see the world free of dualistic perceptions, while ordinary beings remain trapped in a dualistic vision

Astus wrote:
Anger, fear, love, desire - they all exist within a dualistic perception only. But that eliminates the possibility of seeing attachment itself as empty, since there is no attachment present.

Vajrasvapna said:
Moreover, buddhas and bodhisattvas may use negative emotions as a tool for compassion

Astus wrote:
That does not qualify as actually having those negative emotions, it is only acting.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Astus, I think the question you are asking is mistaken.  I believe a more relevant question would be:  Is Samsara Worth It?

Astus wrote:
See my first sentence in the OP. However, it still does not answer the nature of buddha/bodhisattva-activity.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
I thought this was just a Theravada dilemma. So Mahayanists struggle with this too? I thought you guys had Bodhisattva vows, Buddha-lands, Pure-lands, Buddha-fields.

Astus wrote:
Those are either pre-nirvana (bodhisattva activity) or manifestations of a buddha's pre-nirvana activities (accumulation of merit). There's also the idea of non-abiding nirvana, where buddhas work on saving beings out of compassion, but I have addressed this type in the OP.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Lindama said:
The attachment stops, not the activity.  One does the next thing...  the aloof, empty robot thingy is a misunderstanding although it may appear as aloofness to others.  As one example, when tired, sleep.  further, the ending of samsara does not insure the end of so-called bad things happening.

Astus wrote:
What is the cause of activity?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Title: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If and when someone agrees that the whole of samsara from hells to heavens is painful and unsatisfactory, liberation from it is the logical choice. But when nirvana is presented as not only the end of all the inconvenient things in life, but the end of all the good things as well, how could enlightenment be desirable? When one is without all the attachments and goals that motivate human beings to get up in the morning, isn't that like being totally uninterested in everything, like losing one's appetite?

If one is free from like and dislike, hope and fear, there is no reason to do anything. The only type of action left is mechanical reaction without emotions, a robot made of flesh and blood. Although it is said that nirvana is the great happiness, it only means total contentment, that is, being satisfied and thus wanting nothing, again a state that lacks all motivation to achieve anything. When there's nothing left to do, why do anything at all?

It is taught that compassion motivates the buddhas and bodhisattvas. However, is it anything else than externalising what otherwise common beings have as internal motivation? Isn't it like a slave or a puppet who acts only as others will, or like natural phenomena like rain and wind?

Or if we say that attachment is already enlightenment, that emotions like anger and worry are naturally empty and harmless, what is the difference between a buddha and a common mortal? If through awareness one is not affected by whatever emotion or thought occur, that turns feelings dead and one is not moved by them at all, losing all motivation.

So, can the Buddha have a human face instead of a blissed out aloofness?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Title: Re: Arhats and Bodhisattvas
Content:
Malcolm said:
"Buddhahood in the this life" means completing the two accumulations which lead to both freedom and omniscience.

It is impossible for someone to has generated bodhicitta to experience the fruit of an arhat, i.e. cessation, indeed, it is against the very principles of the bodhisattva path to do so.

Astus wrote:
Completing the two accumulations by what? If killing people in a dream is not the same karma as actually being a mass murderer, imagining doing the paramitas and actually practising them for at least three immeasurably long cosmic time periods might not be equal either. Or we can say that there is the buddha-nature already perfect and complete that requires no such accumulation of anything, although this practically means non-attachment to the aggregates.

As for cessation being the fruit, that is claiming that the Buddha answered the question regarding the life of a Tathagata after death with a negative statement.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:23 PM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
duckfiasco said:
The difficult point I think is the ceaseless, instantaneous identification with what the mind does. I see dukka woven into the mind but think "well, what else is there other than this churning out of thoughts, feelings etc.?"

It feels like trying to watch the surface of a lake, and bugs keep skittering by.
Now, they're going to do that no matter what, but I seem to pay attention to every single one to the point of exhaustion, and I've lost sight of the water's calm surface. All I see is bugs making endless ripples.

Astus wrote:
As long as one thinks that bugs should not be there, that the surface must be calm and peaceful, there will be dissatisfaction. What is dissatisfaction? When things don't match our expectations. Now, is the source of the problem found in the things or in the expectations? Or, in Zen lingo, do you hit the cart or the horse?

If you believe that you are your mind, your consciousness, your attention or whatever else, then you want to freeze it in some state you consider acceptable. If you want control over what happens, that is assuming a self. But if you want to disassociate from everything going on, that is also assuming a self. What you might want to see is that even when you get lost in a stream of ideas, that is as insubstantial as everything else. Don't consider one type of experience good and another type bad. That's because this kind of like-dislike attitude is the very problem. If you focus on the bugs, then just focus on them, it is the same awareness as the awareness of the whole lake. In fact, both are just temporary experiences. The question is whether you want to stay somewhere, want to move somewhere, or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
duckfiasco said:
I read something similar, and notice that each perception forms a mental wave of consciousness or an impression. Then that impression can be glommed onto and fantasies woven around it, long after the initial contact has faded. Is this where the grasping and identification you mean occurs? It's very, very deep and habitual in my mind, and daunting to try to maintain consistent awareness of something happening so frequently.

As for "understanding that already the mind is without any abode" what is this understanding? Surely not an intellectual set of ideas? It wouldn't matter anyway since I can't remember most of what I learn, so I'll forget. Then some experiential insight? If so, how does one come to see this without setting up goals to see something and doom zazen from the start? This is the paradox of Zen I keep running into: it's not nothing but at the same time it's not something in the realm of all the "somethings" I'm used to.

Astus wrote:
There is no state or perception you need to hold on to. If you want to figure out something extraordinary, that is just another impermanent experience. Whatever thought, feeling or sensory impression occurs, it inevitably disappears, and there is nothing you need to do about it. That is why it is often said that the mind is naturally peaceful and aware. Ignorance is mistaking impermanent phenomena for a permanent self, that is, intellectualising (trying to understand and/or explain things) and emotionalising (mostly liking or disliking something). The mistake lies not in the fact that there are thoughts and feelings, but in regarding them as real, as true, as self or a possession of the self. Knowledge is to see that all thoughts and feelings are momentary appearances. To see this you just need to sit down (or you can lie down, or stand, or walk, doesn't actually matter, sitting is recommended mostly because it can give a balance between relaxation and tension), and look at what happens. Is there any experience that stays? Can you even do anything to maintain an experience?

Non-abiding mind is just the natural - i.e. already present - awareness. Experience is always changing. Experience means that there is awareness, and since it changes, there is nothing to grasp, nothing that can be taken as reliable, as self. So it is an empty awareness, without attachment, and that is a mind without abode. Don't your thoughts come and go? So, there is no thought to hang on to from the very beginning. The first error we can make is to believe that we can maintain a thought, a state of mind, an experience. The second error is to believe that we have to get rid of a thought. Without attachment and rejection the mind is naturally as it is, open and aware.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Arhats and Bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus wrote:
It reminds me of the common criticism found in the popular versions of Mahayana (e.g. Zen and Tantra), that the common path of the bodhisattva, as it is actually presented by most of the sutras, takes too long and it is too difficult. What hardly anyone dares to consider is that those popular versions actually teach sravakayana under the pretence of "buddhahood in this life". Also, both Zen and Tantra are famous for emphasising discipleship (sravaka-hood). So, I'd add to Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote that hardly anyone wants to take the bodhisattva path, and all the arguments against Theravada are practically valid against the same people who use them.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Is this related to the quote by Dogen, "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature"?
I notice that trying to remain aware of impermanence and see the rich interplay of things, life in general is far less painful.
The view is more keen curiosity than having preferences for certain outcomes.

I'm unclear what "abiding nowhere" means. I realize it's hard to put into words a stranger on the internet can understand.

Astus wrote:
You can relate it to Dogen's teachings if you want, but it's not necessary. What I'm saying is about first hand experience, that is, something to check for yourself.

Maintaining an awareness of impermanence is an important practice, but that's not what I meant. Everything is already changing, there's nothing you can do about that. The problem is when one happens to form a concept, views it as permanent, and thus grasps it and identifies with it. That is, ignorance is having a view and acting on it, it is not the lack of something but something added. Thus it is said that the buddha-nature is clouded and one simply has to remove the dirt. However, that dirt is just this mistake about appearances, of trying to fix things and make things happen (i.e. generating karma).

Abiding nowhere, or non-abiding, is the central teaching of prajnaparamita as well as zen. Understanding that already the mind is without any abode (fixed state) and phenomena are originally empty (without anything to hold on to), that is seeing nature (that change is universal) and not abiding anywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 6:18 PM
Title: Re: Daily life practice?
Content:
Astus wrote:
To me zen is to see life as life. Life is inevitably and unstoppably changing every moment. What does not change is dead. Trying to hold on to something is murder. The constant failure to keep things still is the dissatisfaction with oneself and with life. Thus, abiding nowhere is the buddha-mind, and buddha-mind is what zen is all about.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Astus wrote:
Kukai has a short treatise on http://www.amidanet.com/sokushingi.htm, as an answer to the original question.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm said:
None of these citations assure buddhahood in a single lifetime.

Astus wrote:
True, strictly speaking, all they assure one of is the stage of non-regression, and that guarantees buddhahood. However, life is unlimited in Sukhavati, so perfect enlightenment can happen in one lifetime.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is not a statement that they will achieve buddhahood in a single life in Sukhavati.

Astus wrote:
The 11th vow:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, humans and devas in my land should not dwell in the Definitely Assured State and unfailingly reach Nirvana, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."

Later in the Larger Sutra:

"Sentient beings who are born in that Buddha-land all reside among those assured of Nirvana."

Also:

"However hard you may practice in this life, it can only be for a short while. In the life to come you will be born in the land of Amitayus and enjoy endless bliss there. Being forever in accord with the Way, you will no longer be subject to birth-and-death and be free of the afflictions caused by greed, anger and stupidity. If you wish your life to be as long as a kalpa, a hundred kalpas, or ten million kalpas, it will be just as you please. You will dwell in effortless spontaneity and attain Nirvana."

Shinran's collection of quotes regarding enlightenment in the Pure Land: http://www.amidanet.com/kgss-e.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
JKhedrup said:
It would be interesting to see how "speed" compares in Vajrayana vis a vis Pure Land.

Because of course if one goes to the Pure Land of Sukhavati after death one can bypass a great deal of samsaric experience. However, from the POV of the evolution of a Bodhisattva I am guessing on the theoretical level progress would be a bit slower, as one needs to receive teachings from Amitabha and cultivate the gradual Sutric approach towards realization. Also, there are the different "grades" of lotuses, which has always confused me a bit. How are these grades determined?

At first look, it seems PL is a pretty good deal too!

Astus wrote:
The Pure Land path is the easy method of guaranteed buddhahood in one life.

In the http://www.amidanet.com/amida-sutra-b.htm:

"sentient beings born in that land all dwell in the Stage of Non-retrogression, and will not fall again into an evil realm, be born in a border-land or in the state of debased people or mlecchas. They always enjoy visiting pure lands of other Buddhas. With their excellent vows and practice advancing and developing every moment, they will unfailingly realize the highest, perfect Enlightenment."

The http://www.amidanet.com/contemplation-sutra.htm says about birth on the lowest level of the lowest grade:

"Because he calls the Buddha's Name, with each repetition, the evil karma which he has committed during eighty kotis of kalpas of Samsara is extinguished. When he comes to die, he sees before him a golden lotus-flower like the disk of the sun, and in an instant he is born within a lotus-bud in the Land of Utmost Bliss. After twelve great kalpas the lotus-bud opens. When the flower opens, Avalokiteshvara and Mahasthamaprapta teach him with voices of great compassion the method of extinguishing evil karma through the realization of Suchness of all dharmas. Hearing this, he rejoices and immediately awakens aspiration for Enlightenment."

The 19th vow in the http://www.amidanet.com/larger-sutra-1.htm:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters, who awaken aspiration for Enlightenment, do various meritorious deeds and sincerely desire to be born in my land, should not, at their death, see me appear before them surrounded by a multitude of sages, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."

And vow 46:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, bodhisattvas in my land should not be able to hear spontaneously whatever teachings they may wish, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Title: Re: Nothing Exists
Content:
Astus wrote:
Platform Sutra, chapter 9 (tr McRae, BDK edition, p 77-78):

Shenhui said, “Nonabiding is the fundamental, and seeing is the master.”
The master said, “What will this novice say next!”
Shenhui then asked, “When Your Reverence sits in meditation, does he see or not?”
The master struck Shenhui with his staff three times and said, “When I hit you, does it hurt or not?”
[Shenhui] answered, “It both hurts and does not hurt.”
The master said, “I also see and do not see.”
Shenhui asked, “What is this seeing and also not seeing?”
The master said, “My seeing is to see constantly my own mind’s errors. I do not see other people’s right and wrong or good and evil. This is to see and also not to see. You said it hurts and does not hurt. How about this? If you do not hurt, then you’re the same as a tree or rock. If you hurt, then you’re the same as an ordinary [unenlightened] person, who would become resentful.When you just said ‘seeing and also not seeing’ [you thought] they were two extremes, and your ‘hurts and does not hurt’ were [your misconception of] birth and death. But you don’t see your self-nature, so you’re just playing around.”
Shenhui bowed in gratitude.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 19th, 2014 at 4:50 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land for the not very faith-inclined?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides just accepting/believing in the Vow (i.e., reciting the name connects one to Amita Buddha and brings about deliverance to the Pure Land after death), one can take this as a method (it is a Mahayana skilful means after all). The first thing to consider is if one can accept that there is such a thing as karma. Karma means that there is a non-material mental continuum that follows a specific type of causal law. If you cannot agree to that - either because of indecision or disbelief - then no matter what practice you choose, it is only for a temporary pacification of mind. If you want to move beyond that level, either you leave it to chance or you start investigating your mind and studying the teachings. On the other hand, if you accept karma, then it can be followed by considering first how one's attachment leads to various births, then a contemplation on the existence of bodhisattvas, buddha-lands and buddhas. Once that is understood, it becomes obvious how and why birth in the Pure Land is possible through buddha-remembrance.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: What is "mind" in mahamudra
Content:
Astus wrote:
You might also do some homework on the subject:

http://www.namsebangdzo.com/Distinguishing_Dharma_p/11445.htm
http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/conwisdom.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Obaku?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As a background information on the origin of the Obaku school I recommend the book https://books.google.com/books?id=Y7sueo8jsYwC. It shows how Yinyuan Longqi (Ingen Ryuki, founder of Obaku-shu) was a member of a highly sectarian group that worked hard to take over the (Chan) Buddhist scene in China.
And an essay by the same author on Mount Huangbo: http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/31/EAH31_02.pdf.

As for the idea that Soto Zen is a "one practice school", that is a major simplification. Dogen basically took everything he had seen and learnt in China back to Japan, including monastic regulations and architectural style. It is a very modern idea - strongly propagated by Kodo Sawaki - to reduce everything to seated meditation as the sole thing to do. Even the emphasis on Dogen and his works is an 18th century innovation of the Soto school started by Menzan Zuiho.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Non-celibacy
Content:
Astus wrote:
First I'd like to extend the area of investigation to all sense pleasures and not only sex. This I find important, because while sex is supposedly the ultimate sense pleasure, it is hardly the only one. In fact, there are perfectly ordinary people, who are not even Buddhists, who spend years without any sexual relationship, but not without all sense pleasures.

Eating and drinking are the most common source of sense pleasure. Tasty food is practically a basic requirement even for the cheapest fast food products. And although infusion can sustain the bodily functions, just as various nutritional products, we don't even call them food. Something without any taste is almost inedible. Why is that? Because we like to eat and we like to feel good tastes. But I have yet to see Buddhists debating with each other about whether to switch to injecting themselves with some sort of nutritional liquid or stay with consuming common food. That's probably because eating is not considered a big issue. In the same fashion one could consider various drinks - and there's no need to include alcohol here - like tea, coffee, juices, milk, and all the other kinds. Other sensory areas also give us almost infinite forms of pleasure, like the melody of a sutra recitation and the golden colours of a Buddha painting. And the joys of an intellectual challenge is a whole different area, although something not considered sense pleasure.

Is it possible to enjoy a nice meal and still be a good Buddhist? Is it allowed for a zealous practitioner to find a few moments of happiness in the smell of spring flowers? How about the hermit living up in the mountains and writing poems about the beauty of the scene?

Can a buddha eat a slice of chocolate cake and not fall out of nirvana? If yes, is it because he feels no taste, or because he makes no difference between good or bad taste, or because he is not attached to it, or is it something else? If he feels no taste, that would be annihilationism. If he makes no difference between good or bad taste, that would be indifference. If he is not attached to it, that would be escapism.

It is easy to come up with some theoretical excuse that everything is empty and the mind is originally pure. Or a practical-looking attitude of "just be in the moment". Although they are good advice, unless one can live it, they are useless. Whatever solution one thinks is there, it is nothing but another identity view.

No matter what is the explanation, the very effort of trying to prove that enjoying this or that shows how one is stuck with a concept of purity. What one should pay attention to is rather the emotional and intellectual frustration one generates constantly regarding all sorts of phenomena. This approach of "I'm not good enough" is mistaken from the very beginning, and the same goes for such ideas as "I'm sinful because I like strawberry cake".

As I see it, besides the saintly stories of the enlightened masters of the past one should also recognise the human world. And only when samsara and nirvana are no different from each other, when things are simply what they are, then it becomes possible to stop being afraid of whatever comes or whatever goes.

Yunmen said (tr. App, p 95),

"when someone gets there, speaking about fire does not burn his mouth. He can discuss the matter all day long without it ever touching his lips and teeth and without uttering a single word. Though he eats and all day long wears his robe, he never touches a single grain of rice nor a single thread."

And Linji paraphrasing Lanzan (tr. Sasaki, p 11),

"Followers of the Way, as to buddhadharma, no effort is necessary. You have only to be ordinary, with nothing to do -defecating, urinating, wearing clothes, eating food, and lying down when tired. Fools laugh at me, but the wise understand."

Dazhu Huihai explains (tr. Lok To),

Once a Vinaya Master came and asked: "In your practice of the Tao, do you still work hard?"
The Master answered: "Yes, I still work hard."
The Vinaya Master asked: "How hard?"
The Master retorted: "If I'm hungry, I eat. If I'm tired, I sleep. "
The Vinaya Master asked: "Do all other people work hard just as you do?"
The Master answered: "No, not in the same way."
The Vinaya Master asked: "Why not?"
The Master answered: "While they are eating, they are not really eating due to too much thinking. While they are sleeping, they are not really sleeping due to too much mental agitation. Therefore, they do not work in the same way I do."
The Vinaya Master, on hearing this, fell silent.

And Bodhidharma relates this to sex (tr. Red Pine, p 39),

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, bow can they become Buddhas? 
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure. Despite dwelling in a material body of four elements, your nature is basically pure. It can’t be corrupted.

Finally, http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/wake-and-laugh/selections sums it up,

"It’s natural to think about and take care of the things that come up in your life. I’ve never said, “Don’t make money, don’t participate in society, don’t fall in love, don’t do anything at all.” Just understand that everything is already flowing, and don’t try to cling to it. Nothing remains stationary and unchanging."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 9th, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Obaku?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides that there are only a couple of books available in English on Obaku-shu, if anyone wanted to practice in a sort of zen-nenbutsu style, it is a lot easier to just go for Chinese Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 8th, 2014 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to me that the confusion regarding Yogacara originates from the unchecked presumption that Madhyamaka is some sort of pure communication of the ultimate truth in the form of total negation. That is a failure of taking account of common reality and the so called everyday truth. If we look at Nagarjuna's Middle Discourse, he uses classical abhidharma terms in chapter 17 to explain karma. As I see it, what Yogacara does is that it organises and explains in a detailed fashion how karma, mind and the whole path of liberation works, unlike Madhyamaka that leaves it to abhidharma. So, Yogacara was/is necessary to establish a more complete and complex view of Mahayana than what early Madhyamaka presents.

Later fusions and debates between Indian and especially Tibetan thinkers can easily distort the perception of the various ways Yogacara was interpreted by its followers. As far as I can tell, the argument that Yogacara posits an ultimate existence contrary to the understanding of emptiness is an (intentional/unintentional) mistake. That there is a really existing mind, or that dependent nature is an absolute reality are equally faulty concepts, as either it is a claim that the dreamer (grasper, self) is real or that the dream (grasped, dharmas) is real.

Regarding the meaning of the three natures, see Vasubandhu's Trisvabhava-nirdesa 11-13 (tr. Kochumuttom, p 249; also: http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/garfie.htm ), and also look at Trimsika-vijnaptimatrata 20-25, and chapter 10 of Chengweishilun (BDK edition: pp 281-296) for commentary.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
Malcolm said:
As in Shantaraskita's Yogacara Madhyamaka.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's what I thought of, thank you.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 6:11 PM
Title: Re: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
kirtu said:
Cittamatra is in fact taught as a prelude to Madhyamaka in Sakya.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean Cittamatra in its limited sense of "all phenomena are only mind"?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
By not out there I meant not independent of the mind. When something is not independent of the mind it is not an objective reality. As a mental creation it has no more reality than dreams and such. So it could even be said that things that seem to be independent of one's mind are non-existent, and existent only as mental products. Therefore real existence independent of mind is an illusion, a mistake. Since there is nothing left to attach to as reliable and real, there is no subject that could be attached either. So setting up three steps is pedagogical only, although this is no surprise as all teachings are nothing but skilful means.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Kunle,

The third step could be matched with Yogacara's parinispanna, the perfected nature, if one wants to follow their trisvabhava system.

"Through the perception of mind-only 
One achieves the non-perception of objects; 
Through the non-perception of objects 
There is also the non-perception of mind."
(Vasubandhu: Trisvabhava-nirdesa, v 36, http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/garfie.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 1st, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Instantaneous awakening.
Content:
White Lotus said:
it just cant be done. this points to the necessity of having travelled some way along the path in order to appreciate such expressions.  there needs to be prior experience in order to appreciate the term: "Instantaneous Awakening". can anyone here put it into simple understandable language. I doubt it!

Astus wrote:
Could we then say that the myth of instantaneous awakening is busted?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land Contradicts Buddha Teachings....
Content:
jeeprs said:
I am interested in how 'eternal' and 'permanent' might be distinguished.

Basically, the Pure Land teachngs seem to me to arise from the deification of the Buddha. That is not meant as a criticism, but I find it hard to distinguish quite a lot of what is said in Pure Land philosophy from Christian theology.

Astus wrote:
Eternal in Amitabha's case means unending, continuing uninterrupted. Permanent means static, not changing. Samsara has no beginning or end, but it is not static.

Yes, the Pure Land teachings are part of the general trend to venerate buddhas, bodhisattvas and other superior beings. However, Christian theology is quite a different matter in a different context and world view. The resemblance is very superficial. In order to understand what Pure Land Buddhism is about and how it fits into Mahayana, one needs to study Mahayana. Otherwise it's all just speculation without any relevant knowledge.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 24th, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land Contradicts Buddha Teachings....
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides the Pure Land being out of samsara, eternal life there doesn't mean permanent. In fact, whatever that is alive is necessarily changing, therefore not permanent. The Pure Land itself is a step on the path to buddhahood. Once buddhahood is reached, you don't stay in Amitabha's land.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Jodo Shinshu and the non-believer's "outcome"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Amida is not some kind of deity to enforce anything on beings. Everybody is a victim of their own doings. Therefore, only if one has the proper connection with the Vow it is possible to be born in the Pure Land. And that connection is faith itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 18th, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Instantaneous awakening.
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Instantaneous awakening to the ordinary mind being buddha." - that single sentence encompasses such a complicated conceptual system that in order to comprehend it intellectually can take years. And then comes actualisation of such an understanding, working for who knows how many years or even lives.

Let's put this idea of "instantaneous awakening" into ordinary English, so that those who know nothing about Buddhism can make sense of it. How would that sound?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Who is it that hears?
Content:
Ethan said:
Can anyone elaborate on the student's comment, "Originally it is not empty"?

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is not nothingness, that's what it means. Awareness is the function of emptiness, the substance. Function and substance are not two different things. Awareness itself is empty, emptiness itself is awareness. And awareness is the countless phenomena experienced all the time.

"Simply knowing that there is nothing you need to understand is in fact seeing the nature." (Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind, p 218)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Astus wrote:
The contradiction of mind versus matter is unresolvable simply because they are defined as different in nature (material-immaterial). Various solutions have been proposed, often reducing dualism into monism.

The Buddha was asked whether the soul (jiva) is identical or different from the body (sarira). And he said such a position "is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." (MN 72)

Some misunderstand that as avoiding so called "metaphysical questions", but that's not it. Rather, when there is no substance (difference in nature, material-immaterial), there is no contradiction. Instead of a body-mind dualism there are the five aggregates and the eighteen dhatus, various categorisations for the complete realm of experience, where things arise and cease in an interdependent causal nexus.

Kant refused to take a position in the idealist-realist debate, and it seems to me that phenomenology is the idea that avoids the idealist-positivist extremes. As for physicists trying to argue for a philosophical concept, they seem to be mixing up scientific results with philosophical reasoning. And that's not really better than confusing theology with biology.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: What Buddha Actually Did According to pudgala2
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html#div-3 is already clear that a bodhisattva should save beings without the concept of beings, otherwise he is not a bodhisattva at all.

Then, the Vimalakirti Sutra has a whole chapter (ch. 7) regarding how sentient beings to be viewed.

[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “If one wishes to save sentient beings, what should be eradicated?”
Answer: “If one wishes to save sentient beings, the afflictions should be eradicated.”
(BDK edition, p 126)

And the idea that beings are no different from afflictions has also been articulated in Chan from early on.

False thoughts are sentient beings. For the body and mind to be motionless is called “to save sentient beings.”
(Shenxiu: The Five Expedient Means, in "The Northern School and the formation of early Ch’an Buddhism"; tr. McRae, p 181)

So, I don't see how the definition of sentient begins has been misunderstood by the tradition or followers. That there is no self but only the five aggregates has been the teaching of the Buddha ever since. This is not a Zen specific teaching, it is fundamental in all Buddhist traditions. Even saying that sentient beings are no different from buddhas and afflictions are enlightenment is just common Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Who is it that hears?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Now, there are many points at which to access the principle. I will point out one approach that will allow you to return to the source.

Chinul: Do you hear the sounds of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?
Student: Yes.
Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Are there many sounds there?
Student: At that place, all sounds and discriminations are unascertainable.
Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokiteśvara’s method for accessing the principle. Let me ask you again. You said, “At that place, all sounds and discriminations are unascertainable.” But since they are unascertainable, at such a time isn’t the hearing-nature just empty?
Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never benighted.
Chinul: What is this essence that is not empty?
Student: As it has no form or shape, it is ineffable.
Chinul: This is the life force of all the buddhas and patriarchs—have no further doubts. Since it has no form or shape, how can it be either large or small? Since it is neither large nor small, how can it have any boundaries? Since it has no boundaries, it cannot have either inside or outside. Since there is no inside or outside, there is no far or near. As there is no far or near, there is no here or there. As there is no here or there, there is no coming or going. As there is no coming or going, there is no birth or death. As there is no birth or death, there is no past or present. As there is no past or present, there is no delusion or awakening. As there is no delusion or awakening, there is no ordinary person or sage. As there is no ordinary person or sage, there is no purity or impurity. Since there is no impurity or purity, there is no right or wrong. Since there is no right or wrong, names and words do not apply to it. Since none of these concepts apply, all sense-bases and sense-objects, all deluded thoughts, even forms and shapes, names and words are all inapplicable. Hence how can it be anything but originally void and calm and originally no-thing?

(From " Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind " in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 2, 221-222)
A topic with links to two translations of the text: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=12572.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:22 PM
Title: Re: Interesting look at Lotus Sutra at Fake Buddha Quotes
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is often forgot in the search for the "original teachings" is that there is no such definition in Buddhism of what should be considered the Buddha's saying. It is, as the OP's quote shows, a confusion with modern Christian ideas about looking for the "real (historical) Jesus". Unlike the Judeo-Christian world view, Buddhism is not based on a historical narration but on the Saddharma that is accessible to all. So, verification of a teaching relies not on historical investigation but on personal experience.

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.079.than.html )

Also check: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 10th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Bankei's All Things Resolved
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think Bankei's example might help with the meaning of "resolved/organised":

その不生でととのひまする不生の証拠は、皆の衆がこちらむひて、身どもがかふ云う事を聴いてござるうちに、後にて烏の声雀の声、それぞれの声を聞こうと、思う念を生ぜずに居るに、烏の声雀の声が通じわかれて、間違わずに聞こゆるは、不生で聞くといふものでござるわひの。

"In the Unborn, all things are perfectly resolved. I can give you proof that they are. While you're facing me listening to me speak like this, if a crow cawed or a sparrow chirped, or some other sound occurred somewhere behind you, you would have no difficulty knowing it was a crow or a sparrow, or whatever, even without giving a thought to listening to it, because you were listening by means of the Unborn." (tr. Waddel, p. 40)

So, thanks PorkChop for highlighting that in the original saying it is actually a negative question and not a statement.

Later Waddel (p. 55) actually translates 調 using a different expression: "the Buddha-mind puts all things in perfect order by means of the Unborn" (佛心は不生にして、一切事がととのう。)

Now I feel quite confident in saying that "resolves" has the meaning of solution by harmonisation. Thanks Qianxi for giving a summary on the meaning of 調 in Chinese, it is a useful set of associations.

And if anyone else has something more to add, please do so.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Bankei's All Things Resolved
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'd like to get clear on the meaning of "resolved" in the "lion's roar" of Bankei.

Japanese says, 一切の事は不生で調うのではないか。
Both English translations render it as: all things are perfectly resolved in the unborn.

How 調うのではない becomes resolved? Is it like dissolved, dispersed, destroyed, melted, disassembled? Or is there another meaning? Is this something colloquial or can it be connected to any Buddhist terms?

Later it is said that Bankei's teaching can be summed up as 不生万調 （不生の心で万(すべ)て調(ととの)う）, but this is contrary to the previous one where 調う is denied.

Japanese: http://www.sets.ne.jp/~zenhomepage/nipponnzen.2.html


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: How to reconcile both views?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think the first big step is to accept that Buddhism is not a "practical philosophy" as late 19th century colonists liked to present it to the Western intellectual elite, but an Asian religion. And if we move Buddhism under the category of religion it is not surprising at all that it is full of religious things like rituals, spirits, deities, magic spells, holy places, relic worship, etc. And you may find all that from the very beginning. It doesn't mean you have to accept ancient Indian beliefs in order to benefit from the Buddha's teachings. However, there's nothing you need to do about traditional concepts you see in Asian Buddhist communities where people pray in front of statues and pictures for health and prosperity.

It all depends on what one's goal is with Buddhism. Think of it as a supermarket where you have a large selection of services. It is completely up to you to choose whatever you like. You can do chanting, prostrations, visualisations, philosophy, all sorts of meditation, and many other things. These are not differing views to reconcile, they are methods. The view itself is quite universal within Buddhism, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Astus wrote:
Brains and neurology are besides the point. Mahamudra is not a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind but a practical method that is to be applied within one's personal sphere of experience. If there are bodily feelings one identifies with mind, those should be looked into using the correct path of analysis as presented in the Mahamudra instructions. Theorising about all that is a different thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mind is what knows, the presence of consciousness. If you say you imagine/feel your brain to be your mind, that is not your mind, it is an image/feeling that the mind is aware of. So, if you want to locate the mind, find what knows.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 6:38 PM
Title: Re: Zen's view of bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus wrote:
If you look at current Chinese Buddhism, most organisations are not centred around a specific doctrine or practice, thus they often claim - in line with the idea of Humanistic Buddhism - that they embrace all eight schools of Chinese Buddhism (i.e. Vinaya, Madhyamaka, Pure Land, Chan, Tiantai, Huayan, Yogacara, Tantra).

For instance, in the Fo Guang Shan's school customs ( http://www.fgs.org.tw/fgs/fgs_introduction.aspx ), defining their approach, it is stated:

"To propagate all eight schools of Buddhism, and promote the coexistence of monastics and laity." (八宗兼弘，僧信共有。) (also in "The Buddha's Light Philosophy", p 139)

Practically speaking, Chinese Buddhism has never seen strong sectarianism, and monasteries have always accepted all sorts of teachings as long as one abided by the general regulations of monastic life. This, because of projecting Japanese Buddhism on the Chinese, Western scholars often misinterpreted as some sort of syncretism, most often as a mixture of Pure Land and Chan.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 6:28 PM
Title: Re: Zen's view of bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides what Master Huifeng has already pointed out that there is no such thing as "Zen orthodoxy", I'd like to add that Zen has never existed in some sort of vacuum independent of the larger Buddhist tradition. Dogen criticises "sectarianism" in his http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/butsudo/translation.html (Buddha Way):

"The treasury of the eye of the true dharma, the wondrous mind of nirvana, correctly transmitted by the buddhas and ancestors, they rashly call the "Zen school." They call the ancestral masters "Zen ancestors"; they call the students "Zen masters" or "Zen preceptors"; or they call themselves "lines of the Zen houses."  These are all but "branches and leaves" that have taken a biased view as the "root." When, throughout the Western Heavens and Eastern Earth, from ancient times till the present, there has not been the term "Zen school,” rashly to call oneself [by this term] is to be a demon who would destroy the way of the buddha, an unbidden enemy of the buddhas and ancestors."

And if we look at the larger tradition (as does Steven Heine in https://books.google.com/books?id=mgOcmlCwZ5MC and https://books.google.com/books?id=me8hUT-pvw4C ) we find that Buddhists believed not only in the usual Mahayana cosmology but also the local common beliefs (Chinese/Japanese/etc. values, folklore and mythology). And that's not different from us today when we take modern ideas for granted. Therefore the conflict is not on the level of "Zen views" but rather modern conditioning against an ancient one.

As for what could be qualified as Zen, it is better understood as a higher level teaching within Mahayana that focuses on wisdom. As such, it emphasises direct understanding of the truth of the real nature of mind and appearances, i.e. emptiness. Direct means not mediated by explanations but experienced personally. So, it is the final moment before enlightenment on the path of sila, samadhi and prajna. Therefore external entities like bodhisattvas and buddhas have no place here. So, Dazhu Huihai writes ( http://terebess.hu/zen/huihai-eng2.html, X63n1223, p23, a9-12):

"Sentient beings must seek to save themselves and not wait for the Buddha to do it. If the Buddha could liberate sentient beings, then, since there have been Buddhas as numerous as all the dust motes that have ever existed, surely all of them would have been delivered by now. So why do we still loaf about in these realms of birth and death, unable to become Buddhas? Everyone should understand that sentient beings must save themselves. The Buddha will not do it. Make an effort! Practice yourself! Do not depend upon the power of other Buddhas."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Title: Re: Huayan translations
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.acmuller.net/kor-bud/collected_works.html, volumes 4 & 5 contain translations of Huayan/Hwaeom works.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Questions about bodhisattva vow
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm not sure what "root bodhisattva vow" you refer to. If it is the intention to attain buddhahood in order to liberate beings, i.e. bodhicitta, then yes, if one abandons that aspiration, there is no achievement of the various bodhisattva stages, as one ceases to practise on the path. It's like deciding not to go that way any more. But then, if one reconsiders, the wish for perfect enlightenment comes back, one can start to walk on the path again.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: What is Enlightenment?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What kind of enlightenment do you want? There are many to choose from in Buddhism. Of course, most - but not all - of them are temporary achievements on the path. If you want buddhahood, learn the paramitas. Know how to give without grasping at the giver, the receiver and the gift.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: How do you experience PL?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is karma real or not? Buddhism says there is karma. Is the path of the bodhisattvas real or not? Mahayana says it is. If there is karma and there is buddhahood, then the buddha-fields can be real as well. And if there are buddhas and buddha-fields, then there can be an Amitabha Buddha with his specific vows.

Also, if one wants first hand experience, consult the Pratyutpannasamadhi Sutra and Tiantai's walking samadhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 5:55 PM
Title: Re: Question about Bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus wrote:
Nirvana as annihilation is a misunderstanding. A bodhisattva realises on the very first stage that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana, so there is no attachment and no suffering. A bodhisattva liberates beings without the grasping of the idea of liberating beings.

As for the Zen view, even Shenxiu taught that the six realms are the six senses, and liberating beings is not clinging to the six types of impressions. So, if you want to liberate all beings, see that the nature of all experience is unattainable, that there is nothing to rely on or hold on to, as it's all constantly changing.

By the way, if bodhisattvas had delayed complete enlightenment until samsara was emptied of beings, there would have been no buddhas at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Satori/Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
There are degrees of realisation and these are validated within Zen orders, as I understand it. Not everyone reaches the same level of realization.

Astus wrote:
Yes, of course, Buddhism has various forms of interpretations regarding the stages on the path, from the four levels of arya sravakas to the fifty-two levels of bodhisattvas. Scriptures popular in Zen, like the Diamond Sutra and the Shurangama Sutra, also mention them. That's part of being a gradual path. However, Dazhu Huihai was more of a representative of the immediate realisation (dunwu/tongo 頓悟) teaching, so talks about no attainment is the norm in such a text.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Satori/Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
The actual meaning of the words satori and kensho should also be given some consideration. Satori literally means understanding, comprehension of something, in this case that something is the ultimate truth of reality. Kensho means to see the nature, that is, to perceive the true nature of mind. Reality is of course the same as the nature of mind, so practically the two words can be used as synonyms. And the reality of mind to be understood and perceived is that no matter what experience there is, it is unstable and impermanent. So, when one calls something an experience of satori/kensho, it is necessarily not that, as it is only another fleeting mental phenomenon and nothing special at all. Understanding the ultimate truth means not attaching to any of our changing moments of life. Thus it is taught that the truth is unattainable and that there is nothing to attain. Seeing that there is nothing to attain is the real attainment, or rather non-attainment.

"Neither grasping at form and sound outside nor allowing a false thought to arise inside is known as attainment. However, when there is attainment, there should be no thought of attainment; and this is known as having non-attainment. Furthermore, when non-attainment is realized, there should be no thought of non-attainment; and this is known as not having non-attainment."
(Dazhu Huihai: Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment, tr. Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Satori/Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
If someone says he can obtain it, he is indeed an arrogant person and indeed is one with those who left the Lotus Assembly, refusing to listen to the Lotus Teaching  Thus the Tathagata said: "There was really no Dharma by means of which the Tathagata attained Supreme Awakening."
(Huangbo Xiyun, Chung-Ling Record, tr. Lok To)

A thorough description of deluded states is found in the Surangama Sutra, chapter 8 (PDF): http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf#G1011700


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
Indrajala said:
So, with no immediate tangible benefits and no pedigree from the Buddha nor intense philosophical backing, Pure Land is basically undermined.

Astus wrote:
Not only PL teachings are undermined when historical authority is involved in backing up a teaching but all Buddhist doctrines and methods. Pure Land thinkers have produced enough philosophical material to give an acceptably solid basis not more shaky than other Buddhist schools.

To give a general example, the idea of the confirmation-transmission between teacher and student, present in various traditions, is historically at least questionable and in many cases refuted as later concoctions. So, the usual argument that having an "enlightened teacher" is enough, that is pure faith in a person and nothing more, as there is no proper criteria for such a teacher besides referring back to an invented lineage.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in Wikipedia
Content:
Astus wrote:
For the tantra part:

"to ingest excrement or urine and do other similar acts is to apply the practice of total sameness of flavor of the sense faculties and their objects"
(JKLT: Systems of Buddhist Tantra, p 288)

"There are numerous methods of pointing out, directly and in actuality, the wisdom that is the union of emptiness and cognizance or emptiness and awareness."
(Tsele Natsok Rangdrol: Empowerment, p 44; see also pp 40-48)

see also: David B. Gray: The Cakrasamvara Tantra, pp. 104-114, 117-124.

For a Mahamudra take on it:

Saraha:

"For those unaware of the nature of everything,
Great bliss is attained in sexual union;
As if thirst-ridden, chasing after water in mirage,
They die from thirst, and do they ever drink the sky-water?
Whoever frolics in this bliss,
Living between vajra and lotus,
What for? This has no capacity for truth,
So {where} in the three worlds will you be complete?
The bliss of means is the moment,
And this itself becomes both;
Through the kindness of the master,
A handful in a hundred will understand."
(Dreaming the Great Brahmin, p 166)

Takpo Tashi Namgyal:

"It is highly incorrect to claim as the state of mahamudra an experience of bliss that pervades the body and mind and which is transmuted with [awareness of] void as if through the process of imprint. This is because the sensation of bliss has emerged from the cyclic flow of the sexual fluid brought about by means of the third empowerment."
(Mahamudra - The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, p 108)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: What makes practice so hard?
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinul 's answer for the reason behind gradual cultivation:

"As for “gradual cultivation,” although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no different from that of the buddhas, the beginningless proclivities of habit (vāsanā) are extremely difficult to remove suddenly. Therefore he must continue to cultivate while relying on this awakening so that this efficacy of gradual suffusion is perfected; he constantly nurtures the embryo of sanctity, and after a long, long time he becomes a sage. Hence it is called gradual cultivation. It is like the maturation of an infant: from the day of its birth, [an infant] is endowed with all its faculties, just like any other [human being], but its physical capacities are not yet fully developed; it is only after the passage of many months and years that it will finally mature into an adult."
(Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 2, p 216-217)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
kirtu said:
The bodhisattva is defined by his/her commitment to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings and their commitment to eventually bring all beings to enlightenment.  Their view of reality is not a defining factor until their are further along the path - they can't become an Arya without refining their view to at least the Cittamatra view.

Astus wrote:
If the view does not matter then worldly merit brings about buddhahood. Without the right view there is no practice of the paramitas, and without the paramitas there is no path to buddhahood. The vow to liberate all beings means unlimited compassion, and it cannot be boundless as long as one grasps at the idea of truly existing beings and things.

kirtu said:
If we have to have the correct refined view of wisdom from the start then we will never get to Buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
From the start all we have is ignorance. Then we learn, reflect and realise. Isn't that the path?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
kirtu said:
It's not a Cittamatrin or Madhyamakian view.  It could however be a Mahayana POV since the view of reality has nothing to do with the motivation to attain enlightenment for all beings and since, at least in Sakya, one trains progressively in the lower views as steps to the higher views (with "lower" and "higher" seen from the TB perspective).  Thus a bodhisattva could hold a Vaihashika or Sautrantika view.

Astus wrote:
A bodhisattva is not just the intention to attain buddhahood. Without the view of prajnaparamita there is no bodhisattva. Wisdom and compassion can go only hand in hand. Otherwise compassion is no different from those of worldly beings, and the intention to achieve buddhahood is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Wise Bodhisattvas, coursing thus, reflect on non-production,
And yet, while doing so, engender in themselves the great compassion,
Which is, however, free from any notion of a being.
Thereby they practise wisdom, the highest perfection.
(Verses on the Perfection of Wisdom, ch 1, p 11-12, tr Conze)

"the Bodhisattva, the great being, awakes in non-attachment to full enlightenment in the sense that he understands all dharmas. Because he has enlightenment as his aim, an 'enlightenment-being' [Bodhisattva], a great being, is so called."
(PP8000, ch 1, p 89, tr Conze)

"Good sons and good daughters who want to arouse the aspiration for peerless perfect enlightenment should think like this: 'I will save all sentient beings.' Yet when all sentient beings have been liberated, in fact, not a single sentient being has been liberated. And why not? Subhūti, if a bodhisattva holds the notion of a self, the notion of person, the notion of sentient being, and the notion of life span, then she is not a bodhisattva. Why? Subhūti, there is actually no such a thing as peerless perfect enlightenment."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html#div-17 )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Can't Really Work with Mahayana by the Looks of it
Content:
Astus wrote:
I say I choose Mahayana over anything else because it is a Vast Vehicle. That is, it encompasses everything you can find within Buddhism. It is like the Great Collection (i.e. the Chinese canon) that includes all sorts of texts from the agamas to the tantras, from the Dharmapada to Zen poetry. At the same time, it allows reducing all that not only to a short list of doctrines but even to a single word (A, Evam, nenbutsu, emptiness, etc.), symbol (vajra, circle, finger, etc.) or even a posture (zazen). Mahayana can be anything and everything, an infinite number of skilful means, and at its core there is nothing to find.

You say you are bored of and confused by all the different explanations, methods and theories. No problem. You can choose whatever fits.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
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)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Authentic Buddhist Scriptures?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030220183543/http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/entry-into-mahayana.htm is a good answer.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Qualities of a teacher
Content:
Meido said:
Perhaps other folks could chime in.

Astus wrote:
Let's hope they do. And thanks for your input, it is interesting to hear about those things.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: Qualities of a teacher
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The greats of the past (many times) start off as the degenerates of the present.

Astus wrote:
Those greats of the past through the ages get deified and given superhuman attributes. Naturally, it's impossible to find any real person comparable to them. It should be considered that whatever we know of past sages are very minimal and often fictitious. No wonder the "qualities of a teacher" people look for can be irrationally exaggerated. Learning Buddhism is not much different from learning some worldly skill like sculpting, programming, carpentry and such. Teachers and schools are there to help in the process of mastering the skill, to transfer proven knowledge and methods. As I see it, the whole process is too mystified, but I guess it is part of being a religion. At the same time, there have always been teachers who wanted people to grasp the simplicity of the whole thing, like the renowned patriarchs of Zen, but there are also a number of modern teachers, like the Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche and his Rebel Buddha programme.

Here are some harsh words from Linji (tr. Sasaki) about present teachers, past teachers, and those who prefer to stick to the scriptures.

Virtuous monks, time is precious. And yet, hurrying hither and thither, you try to learn meditation, to study the Way, to accept names, to accept phrases, to seek buddha, to seek a patriarch, to seek a good teacher, to think and speculate.
“Make no mistake, followers of the Way! After all, you have a father and a mother—what more do you seek? Turn your own light inward upon yourselves!
(p 10)

Followers of the Way, you seize upon words from the mouths of those old masters and take them to be the true Way. You think, ‘These good teachers are wonderful, and I, simple-minded fellow that I am, don’t dare measure such old worthies.’ Blind idiots! You go through your entire life holding such views, betraying your own two eyes. Trembling with fright, like donkeys on an icy path, [you say to yourselves,] ‘I don’t dare disparage these good teachers for fear of making karma with my mouth!’
(p 17)

Followers of the Way, even if you should master a hundred sutras and śāstras, you’re not as good as a teacher with nothing to do. If you do master them, you’ll regard others with contempt. Asura like conflict and egotistical ignorance increase the karma that leads to hell. Such was the case of Sunakṣātra bhikku — though he understood the twelve divisions of the teachings, he fell alive into hell. Th e great earth had no place for him. It’s better to do nothing and take it easy.
(p 31)

And one on Shakyamuni:

Followers of the Way, if you say that the Buddha is the ultimate, how is it that after eighty years of life the Buddha lay down on his side between the twin śāla trees at Kuśinagara and died? Where is the Buddha now? We clearly know that his birth and death were not different from ours.
(p 19)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Qualities of a teacher
Content:
Meido said:
So at least from the time of the Mongol invasions we have records of Chinese masters in Japan commenting on things like energetic cultivation centered on the abdomen and the evidence of its fruition, the use of a shout to facilitate recognition, and so on.  I therefore wouldn't say it's a Japanese thing; I would probably say that some Japanese Rinzai lines have preserved this kind of approach and understanding.

And of course I don't consider all of this a purely Zen thing either.  In my experiences with teachers from non-Zen and non-Japanese Buddhist traditions who were considered to have been greatly realized, I've also observed many of the same qualities, and have heard descriptions of practices and methods that are remarkably similar.  For what it's worth.

Astus wrote:
Aren't those energetic cultivation techniques of Taoist (or indigenous Chinese) origins? And those signs you mentioned could be present in Taoist literature and art as well. But I'm just guessing here. Perhaps you or anyone familiar with that area could clarify this.

Besides observing the qualities yourself, do you know any other Buddhist tradition, besides some Rinzai lineages, where they mention them? Like, as the closest tradition, in Soto Zen?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Qualities of a teacher
Content:
Meido said:
Different things reveal the depth of different aspects of cultivation.

Astus wrote:
I have not investigated this area, so all I know is that Buddhism has the teaching of major and minor signs, but nothing else really. And even those signs are difficult to explain as real physical qualities. So, my question is, what is the source of the symptoms you have described? Is it something specific to Japanese Rinzai Zen?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Esoteric Buddhism: is it real? Why?
Content:
Nosta said:
If I cant find it on internet, etc thats another issue. I was really talking about any form of Buddhism just to a few, like secret societies or secret because its dangerous...and so on.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism itself is just to a few, those with the right karma. If there are some secret groups, then first of all, you won't hear about them; and second, they are very small. As for being dangerous, I think that it would not be Buddhism then. Buddhism is about liberating beings, not harming them. True, people may get the wrong idea when they hear about things like selflessness, emptiness, rebirth, nirvana, suffering, etc., but that's a mostly unavoidable risk.

Bhikkhus, there are these three things that flourish when concealed, not when exposed. What three? (I) Women flourish when concealed, not when exposed. (2) The hymns of the brahmins flourish when concealed, not when exposed. (3) And wrong views flourish when concealed, not when exposed. These are the three things that flourish when concealed, not when exposed.
Bhikkhus, there are these three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed. What three? (1) The moon shines when exposed, not when concealed. (2) The sun shines when exposed, not when concealed. (3) The Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines when exposed, not when concealed. These are Hie three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed.
(AN 3.131)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Esoteric Buddhism: is it real? Why?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Esoteric Buddhism simply denotes a type of teachings. As for what qualifies as "free and open" is not necessarily an easy question. If by that you mean whether you can find things about it on the Internet without paying anything extra, then yes, the Dharma is free and open to all.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Anders said:
Since the purpose of Buddhism is in fact inner peace, compassion and happiness, some evidence of such qualities strike me as fairly essential in a guru who would teach the path to these.

Astus wrote:
As for assessing others, I like http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html. That is, through practically living together one has the opportunity to observe the other person's behaviour, and through discussion one learns the other's views. Living together is hardly for lay people who see their teachers mostly in a ritualistic environment (the temple/monastery/centre), so observing daily behaviour is virtually out of the question, while at the same time, because of the religious setting one can easily get the impression that the teacher is a holy being (same phenomenon with celebrities, priests, etc.).

I rather reverse your statement, that the growth of peace, compassion and happiness in the student is the real measure that listening to another person is beneficial. And if being a student involves full time discipleship or only reading a few passages, it does not matter as long as there are good results. A teacher can be anyone from whom one can actually learn something useful. And that can be as little as saying 'I dare not belittle you. You will become a buddha.' or even less, like raising a flower or moving a finger. Or sometimes decades of full time studying proves to be of little benefit. And the Buddha was the perfect teacher, however, the disciples had various capacities.

Indrajala said:
Bodhidharma was known for his temper. Linji used to whip his students ... often by the sounds of things. Some teachers are rather wrathful and downright mean, yet they're regarded well in history.

Astus wrote:
Zen stories are not history, they are for entertainment and education. Wrathful and mean teachers sound to me more like abusive individuals with psychological issues.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Anders said:
All this talk about what Buddhas do, how truly realised beings are, etc though - No wonder if people are tying themselves into knots. How can we really talk about this with a straight face? I wonder if the Lonely Planet forums are full of people telling others what Indonesia, Burma et al is really like just from having read the travel guides.

I think it's fine to play around with a bit, polishing the concepts so to speak, but at the end of the day third hand knowledge needs a few grain of salt.

Astus wrote:
All those ideas are knots. One might go to countries, but there is no place to find the Buddha beyond one's mind. And within one's mind it's all just imagination.

"If there is no false thought, there is no Buddha. Why not? Just because if you have a view of Buddha, you will think that there really is a Buddha to be attained. If you have a view of sentient beings, you will think there really are sentient beings to be delivered. Such is the totality of your false thought.  However, if you are without any thought or view at all, where then is the Buddha?  So this is why Manjusri said, 'To have any view of Buddha whatsoever is like being limited and obstructed by the two iron-enclosing mountains'."
(Wan-Ling Record of Huang Po, tr. Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Title: Re: Some general questions about Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. The usual definition of "sentient being" is that it has senses (see, hear, smell, taste,touch), and can feel pain and pleasure just as humans do. This includes animals - as it was understood before the microscope - and beings of other realms like ghosts and gods. Living being is often used as a synonym for sentient being. Note that the texts were not only not written in English, but often well before the modern era. That is, they had concepts like very small beings, but not specifically cells and bacteria. One of the areas where the definition of a sentient being matters is ethics. Buddhist ethics is intention, and not action based. I think very few people hate virtually invisible bacteria and consider cleaning the bathroom with chemicals as mass murder.

2. Correct, there are infinite number of beings a bodhisattva wants to save. The meaning of that is again the intention, that a bodhisattva's compassion knows no limits. Becoming a buddha is the culmination of the bodhisattva path, but that doesn't mean buddhas don't work on saving all beings. They do, endlessly.

3. Omniscience in Buddhism often does not refer to godlike all knowledge. Rather it is knowing what the true nature of phenomena is, how everything is empty and dependently originated. It is true that the traditional Buddhist cosmology is at odds with our modern version. There's not much to do about it.

4. The tulku system of lamas reincarnating is a Tibetan invention. It's like when in Europe people were told that the king was invested by God, and other such "son of heaven" emperors and rulers over the planet. I leave it to others to give it further explanation.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
zerwe said:
Does your explanation encompass the notion of the final mode (nature) being "pure mind?"

Astus wrote:
Mind is constantly changing, so there is no final mode. It is always different. Pure mind is a mind without attachment, a mind that understands the nature of mind, i.e. that the mind changes all the time.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Astus wrote:
Basically in Buddhism there are six consciousnesses: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. They stand for the momentary consciousnesses of the six sensory areas.

Consciousness exists when there is something to be conscious of. Besides the five bodily sensory consciousnesses, there is the sixth consciousness, and it is the consciousness of mental phenomena. Mental phenomena includes everything else besides the five bodily sensory consciousnesses.

Generally speaking, there is no separate consciousness from the above six. Together they could be called simply consciousness or mind. The important point is that mind is necessarily impermanent and dependently originated. Mind is a series of moments of mental awareness, and that's how it can also be called mind-continuum.

Rebirth is possible because mental phenomena like greed, hatred and ignorance don't cease with the death of the body, as they don't depend on the existence of the body. The mind continues to exist because mental phenomena are produced by previous mental phenomena, like one thought leads to another thought.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, I don't know how that even addresses the question at all, but it certainly is wordy.

Astus wrote:
The entire life story of the Buddha is only for the education of certain types of sentient beings. It is like a magic show, an illusion. The real body of the Buddha is the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
kirtu said:
Buddhist realization instructor/guide. Certainly not just a meditation instructor.

Astus wrote:
You are right, of course, that here "zen" does not actually mean meditation. Although, if we consider what is found in Rinzai Zen, and Korean and Chinese Buddhism, the "zen teacher" is normally the head of the meditation hall. Zen, as another word of buddha-mind, is a differnt matter. As Huangbo remarked, "Do you know that there are no teachers of Chan in all of China?" (Blue Cliff Record, case 11). And Deshan said, "My teaching has neither words nor phrases. It is actually without a Dharma that may be given to others." (Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 198) So, what is a Zen teacher then and what is there to guide to? Realisation is not given or taken, methods, however, are. Meditation is about working directly with one's mind, so giving the right instructions can indeed serve as a short cut to enlightenment. Thus, "meditation instructor" might as well do it.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
jikai said:
I hope my posts did not in any way come off as me dismissing the Chan/Zen transmission.

Astus wrote:
Not at all.

And since we're in this topic, let me bring this up. In "The Collected Teachings of the Tendai Lotus School" (BDK edition, p 117) Gishin writes,

"Only the samadhi of following one's own thoughts can be contemplated constantly by both monks and lay persons. Even though one is burdened by the duties of a royal court, one should not avoid [this practice]."

This practice seems to come closest to Zen (see http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=145499#p145499 ). One thing is not mentioned in that text, however. How does it relate to the teachings on buddha-nature in Tendai?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
jikai said:
That is, many of the great Zen masters are quite 'unorthodox' in light of the sutra and commentary material...aren't they? (forgive me if I am mistaken, as i mentioned, Zen is not my specialty). At least as I understand it, many Chan masters really are in a seperate category of their own.  Can they be evaluated in the normal way?

Astus wrote:
Zen teachers, at least those I know of from past and present, teach straight Mahayana orthodoxy. The major confusing source is how Zen took up a colloquial style in the Song era, although it could as well be considered nothing more than a literary technique, something that was then on copied by later generations and foreigners (i.e. non-Chinese). The casual style of Zen is a tricky one. It can easily become rigid and traditional, very formalised. At the same time, Buddhist teachers/practitioners can very well be spontaneous and friendly emanations of the Dharma who assume a direct form of communication. So, what is a Zen teacher? Many possible answers. Let's translate it to English: meditation instructor. And we know that Buddhism has meditation instructors in practically every school and monastery. Has anyone noticed how Ven. Dharmamitra in his translation of the Xiao Zhiguan says, "Great Tiantai Meditation Master & Exegete: Sramana Zhiyi"?

"The most important thing in recognizing masters is to be able to judge whether they have a correct view of Buddhadharma. If their views of the Dharma are correct, then even if their behavior reveals some weaknesses, they should not be considered false masters. On the other hand, if teachers do not have a correct view of the Dharma, they cannot be considered authentic or virtuous masters." ( http://ddc.shengyen.org/cgi-bin/ccdd/show.py?s=09-06p0027 )

"Whoever would bring out the vehicle of Zen and cite the doctrines of the Teaching must first understand what the Buddha meant, then accord with the mind of Zen masters. Only after that can you bring them up and put them into practice, comparing degrees of closeness.
If ... you do not know the doctrines and principles but just stick to a sectarian methodology, when you adduce proofs readily but wrongly, you will bring slander and criticism on yourself."
(Fayan Wenyi: Ten Guidelines for Zen Schools ( http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/X63/1226_001.htm ), in Five Houses of Zen, p 140. see https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=160843#p160843 )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
When Guatama ate contaminated food from the blacksmith,
did his body get poisoned and die, or not?

Astus wrote:
"Although I do not actually enter parinirvāṇa I proclaim that I do. It is through this skillful means that the Tathāgata leads and inspires sentient beings. Why is this? Because if the Buddha abides a long time in this world, those who have few qualities do not plant roots of good merit, acquire poor and superficial characters, are attached to the desires of the five senses, and enter into the web of illusions and false views. If they see the Tathāgata always existing without extinction, they then become proud, self-willed, and negligent."
(Lotus Sutra, ch 16, tr Kubo & Yuyama)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Astus wrote:
As Vimalakirti corrected Ananda,

"the bodies of the Tathāgatas are bodies of the Dharma, not bodies of longing. The Buddha is the World-honored One, who has transcended the triple world. The Buddha’s body is without flaws, the flaws having been extinguished. The Buddha’s body is unconditioned and does not fit the [conventional] analytic categories. A body such as this—how could it be ill, how could it be vexed?"
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 3, tr. McRae)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
Malcolm said:
we are dicussing emptiness in yogacara, and whether it really is true that they posit non-dual consciousness that substantially exists. I think in face of the evidence it is a little hard to deny that in fact they did so.

Astus wrote:
"ultimate reality is divorced from existence and divorced from nonexistence by nature" (Cheng Weishi Lun, p 285, tr Cook)

Dependent nature with discrimination is the imagined, without it it is the perfected. However, existence and non-existence are discrimination. Also, among the final verses it says,

"Whenever, regarding the objective realm,
Knowledge is completely devoid of something obtained,
Then it dwells in consciousness only,
Because it is divorced from characteristics of the twofold grasping."
(p 306)

Although in the commentary that Xuanzang accepts as valid it maintains "that the seeing part of this knowledge exists but the seen part does not", although it is still the path of seeing, and the seeing part is required to have suchness as object.

As for the ultimate accomplishment, Yogacara has non-abiding nirvana, so it doesn't look like something that accepts any substantially existent things or minds.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Matylda said:
Do you know Chinese or Japanese version of the oxhead's of inscription? The English translation is nice but I prefer original one.

Astus wrote:
The first link includes the original. Otherwise: http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT2012/T2076_,51,0457b25.html


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Matylda said:
I always thought that it was Kanchi Sosan, the 3rd patriarch of the lineage who wrote it.. it would mean 2 generations before oxhead appeared. Am I wrong?

Astus wrote:
It is as you say. Farong's work is the Xinming (心銘), http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mindins.htm. Also this: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/henrik.htm.

The mentioned Wikipedia article questions the authority of the Xinxinming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinxin_Ming#Authorship


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Astus wrote:
As for Oxhead School texts, this is a really good one: http://terebess.hu/zen/jueguanlun.html. But more interesting would be to see how it all appears in Tendai, if at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
jikai said:
if we don't use the five houses categorization to differentiate between orthodox and otherwise Zen transmissions then what can we use in our determinations?

Astus wrote:
The "five houses" idea was made up in the Song as a method to organise lineages and stories in major collections, starting with the Jingde Chuandeng Lu (pub. 1009) that uses the scheme but does not name it (the reason behind the scheme of five houses is unknown), then the Guandeng Lu (pub. 1039) uses five discrete sections for the houses but does not call it as such, and the first clear mention found of the five houses is from around 1060. (source: How Zen Became Zen, p 22-23)

Talking about "orthodox" in Chan is a difficult question. When Saicho travelled China things looked very different from how later generations imagined it. At that time none of the five houses existed, as schools like Linji and Fayan were created much later.

By the way, could someone specify what kind of practice/teaching is recognised in Tendai as Oxhead?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let's reverse this. Chan is a Tiantai school. See for instance Faure on Shenxiu's background in his "The Will to Orthodoxy", p 49-53, where you get a short description of how Huisi and later Tiantai teachings influenced early Chan, like Daoxin's "one act samadhi". Even the idea of a lineage was first invented by the Tiantai school.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, since there is neither a teaching nor a non-teaching, then why quote it?

Astus wrote:
This might sound a little confusing at first.

"words are neither different nor not-different from meaning and that meaning stands in the same relation to words. If, Mahamati, meaning is different from words, it will not be made manifest by means of words"
(Lankavatara sutra, 3.65)

But if you read the section, it becomes clear that words (ruta) stand for concepts and meaning (artha) for beyond concepts.

There are many other passages in various sutras and teachings explaining how conventional and ultimate reality are not two different things. As I have said previously in this thread, seeing the meaninglessness of life is not the same as denying life. Renunciation means not being attached to things, and not that one has to lock oneself up in a small dark cave.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


Astus wrote:
"From the night of Enlightenment till that of Nirvana, I have not in the meantime made any proclamation whatever."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.61) )

PadmaVonSamba said:
...including that proclamation?

Astus wrote:
As Cone said, yes.

"And there is also no set teaching that can be delivered by the Tathāgata. Why? The teachings explained by the Tathāgata can neither be appropriated nor explained. There is neither a teaching nor a non-teaching."
(Diamond Sutra, ch 7)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Sounds lovely. Nevertheless the Buddha taught. He taught the Four Noble Truths. If you haven't heard of the FNTs try googling it.

Astus wrote:
"From the night of Enlightenment till that of Nirvana, I have not in the meantime made any proclamation whatever."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.61)

And a different passage,

"the great Parinirvana is neither abandonment nor attainment, neither is it of one meaning nor of no-meaning; this is said to be Nirvana."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 2.38)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Are you just making excuses now?

Astus wrote:
Excuses for what? Life in Buddhism does not begin at birth and does not end at death. Abandoning clinging to this life is the first step, renouncing samsara is the next.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: a healthy sex life.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Is it ever possible to have sex with an altruistic, or even just conventionally "healthy" motivation, on any level? Can the act of sex under any circumstances create "white seeds"?

Astus wrote:
Keeping the precepts is generating white seeds. Attachment can be present in both good and bad actions, so it is not a qualifying factor in ethics. Sex, like other kinds of human interaction, can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. Beneficial sex can be kind, compassionate, caring, empowering and even altruistic. It can also be considered how the six paramitas can be applied to sex.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
ground said:
In the end life is gone and you do not have to do anything specifically. You may perceive life as meaningless or meaningful through equating it with "that path". It does not matter because in the end life is gone and the sound "life" or the sign "life" will not evoke any meaning in a brain that is dead.

Astus wrote:
As far as Buddhism is concerned, life is more than just body functions.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Suffice to say that you cannot even try to explain?

Astus wrote:
I can try to tell the same in my own words. You say, "Perception, feeling, and purpose are some basic components of meaning." Those are the aggregates. The Buddha does not identify with any aggregate. He is also not separate from the aggregates. That is, it is not possible to pinpoint what the Tathagata is. Thus to ask whether there is or isn't a meaning for the Buddha is mistaking a who the Buddha is. By the way, the Buddha has not even taught anything.

shel said:
express something meaningless

Astus wrote:
A monk asked, "What is the most valuable thing in the world?"
The master said, "The most valuable is a dead cat's head."
The monk asked, "Why is a dead cat's head the most valuable?"
The master said, "Because nobody can price it."
(Record of Chan Master Caoshan Yuanzheng of Fuzhou, T47n1987Ap0529a04-06)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: a healthy sex life.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
In terms of taking words literally, simply following the 3rd precept is pretty easy, I have actually done that my whole sex life, prior to even being a Buddhist. So obviously, what i'm asking goes beyond just "the basics" of literal interpretation, since to follow Buddhas historical suggestions for layfolks on the subject actually is not too taxing.

Astus wrote:
The first precept is not to kill (or torture) humans. That's not very taxing either. Isn't it important anyway? Most often keeping the five precepts and avoiding the ten wrong actions are difficult only in a given situation. What is actually karmically binding is not even the action itself but the intention and the attachment behind that (an important difference between Jainism and Buddhism). So, the third precept is good as it is, and it is about avoiding doing bad things, being free from the three lower realms.

Going beyond the basics can be done in various ways. To simplify, let's use the classic set of "avoid bad, do good, purify mind". Avoiding bad is keeping the third precept, and it can be extended with further restrictions (new and full moons, place, time, etc.), but it seems to me personally that those added rules are often more cultural than a logical consequence of the teachings, so we could as well switch them to our own cultural superstitions that we already abide by. To do good in terms of sex is likely to be about kindness and putting others in front of ourselves, giving up self-interest. In other words, being loving and caring. The most interesting part is purifying mind. This is about being aware and in control of our emotions and thoughts. It helps tremendously in accomplishing the first two points, and gives us a degree of freedom. Although Ajahn Brahm advertises jhanas by saying that it's better than sex, for the non-celibates, meditation makes sex better, as it helps removing the distractions from our mind and strengthens openness and focus.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I'll also be frank here, i'm interested in this question particular from the viewpoints of people (maybe with a few years under their belts) who have had normal, or abnormal sex lives, and how they view this stuff as regards their Buddhist practice.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, like with every other activity, one should incorporate sex into one's practice of embodying the bodhisattva virtues and perfections. I believe it is a problem to consider sex something extraordinary and special, while actually there are very few things that are more common among humans, like talking and hugging.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
ground said:
What is more than "meaningless" (since you are writing " not only meaningless") ?
You are contradicting yourself. Either life in Buddhism is meaningless or it is samsara which is meaningful. Buddhism makes life meaningful like any other religion or philosophy does. What is life without buddhism? It simply is assigned different meanings, maybe "worldly meanings" as buddhists would say or christian meanings or materialist meanings and what have you.

Astus wrote:
In Buddhism life/samsara is to be perceived as meaningless, thus "make life meaningless". That path can and should be seen as meaningful, as a contrast to staying in samsara, but that meaning is only temporary, and noble beings know that even the Dharma is part of the illusory creations of the mind. So it is not only meaningless, because in the end both meaning and meaninglessness are gone.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
The Buddha was enlightened. The Buddha taught subsequent to enlightenment. Teaching requires perception, feeling, and purpose on the part of the teacher. Perception, feeling, and purpose are some basic components of meaning. There must have been meaning for him. There seems to be no way to deny this. Can anyone try to explain how there could not have been meaning for him?

Astus wrote:
"Not the aggregates, not other than the aggregates; the aggregates are not in him; he is not in them: the Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. ... Those who make fixations about Buddha who is beyond fixations and without deterioration -- all those who are damaged by fixations do not see the tathagata." ( http://www.fodian.net/world/1564.htm#Investigation%20of%20the%20Tathagata )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
But the crucial point, Shel, is that the goal of Dharma practice is to transcend meaning, and relative meaninglessness.  Enlightenment, for sentient beings, may be the ultimate meaning, but for the enlightened one, meaning is transcended. So, too, is the relative meaninglessness, really.    Being "Meaningless" in an absolute way,  is the state of being unattached from Samsara.  It is freedom, Nirvana, the exhaustion of habitual patterns, which includes all concepts related to meaning.

Astus wrote:
I find this a wonderful summary, that highlights the way gradually everything is let go:

“If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner;
If you are attached to samsara, you have no renunciation;
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta;
If there is grasping, you do not have the View.”
( http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/sachen-kunga-nyingpo/parting-four-attachments )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: The Prajñāpāramitā in One Letter
Content:
Astus wrote:
Two things. The "a" sound is part of every Sanskrit consonant letter, so it is sort of the "universal basis". The "a" is also a negating prefix, like "un-" in English. Therefore "a" is like emptiness that is both universal and negates substance.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 6:17 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
It's funny you should say this in context of religion, where people are attached to all sorts of unknowables.

Astus wrote:
It is attachment to vague, often emotionally charged concepts like God, soul, self, ultimate awareness, etc. that people hold on to. They become meaningful as they appear to answer every question by being mostly undefined ideas. The Buddha has very well identified it as self-view and clinging to a self, the root of ignorance. Unfortunately, the same philosophical confusion exists in Buddhism where people like to smuggle in some sort of eternal soul into the Buddhadharma. This is because of the fear of meaninglessness and emptiness, that there is something to lose. This fear of loss (of meaning and substance) is the attachment to self. It is also a misunderstanding of emptiness as annihilation, thus the counter-argument is an eternal thing. The two extreme views. However, the Buddha's middle way is not the extreme of being nor the extreme of non-being. Also, meaninglessness is not another meaning, but only a method to remove attachment to samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Not really, we can grasp at what we don't understand or know the meaning of. And we can be neutral about things that we know the meaning of.

Astus wrote:
Meaning, as the basis of grasping, is attributing an essence, a function and a purpose to something. A slice of cake is meaningful in being viewed as delicious. And those who follow some diet it becomes a more complex meaning. On the other hand, if we can't tell whether something is food or anything else, there is no attachment to it.

shel said:
We suffer meaninglessness. Religion offers meaning, hence a religious life can be far from impoverished, though it may still be rather limited.

Astus wrote:
Suffering is from the desire to find a reliable meaning in something. But meaning always expires because all appearances are impermanent. The want of meaning is the wish to find a constant element in a vanishing reality. Religion proposes an unseen realm that is eternal, and so truly meaningful. Buddhism, however, eventually shows that such an unseen eternity is nothing but another mistaken idea, i.e. meaningless.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I'm not even going to ask "who ever put you in bondage?" but, assuming that all beings eventually are liberated, then what? then we can go to the beach without anyone annoying us telling us that even when we think we're happy we're really suffering?

Astus wrote:
Is your question about life after enlightenment? There are many answers. First is that it is impossible to identify someone as an enlightened being as all attachments have ended (see: SN 44.2; MMK 22). Then there are the colourful descriptions of superpowers and buddha-fields. And there are answers like "chop wood, carry water" and "eat when hungry, sleep when tired". If you want, you can even combined them into the three bodies.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you can reduce suffering while doing other things. otherwise its like hatha yogins who do nothing but exercise and purify their bodies so they can live as long as possible. what for? so they can live as long as possible so they can practice hatha yoga to live as long as possible.

Astus wrote:
I've once heard a Dharma teacher put it this way, "Sitting in meditation is just training. Everyday life is the actual practice." The teaching of the Buddha is for the living, and it is to influence one's every action. The bodhisattva vows are valid not only for life but until all beings are liberated.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you want to make the sole goal of your life the reduction and avoidance of all suffering, fine, but not everyone is going to agree that such an impoverished and limited life is either attractive or meaningful, thank god.

Astus wrote:
Yes, the four noble truths are not easy to accept. There are all sorts of other distractions one can busy oneself with.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
kirtu said:
But imho the complete meaninglessness of samsara is very difficult for even Dharma people to accept.

Astus wrote:
So is emptiness. And that's perhaps because their liberating quality is not apparent. As http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/atasteof.html#middle, "The essence of Buddhism is peace, and that peace arises from truly knowing the nature of all things. If we investigate closely, we can see that peace is neither happiness nor unhappiness. Neither of these is the truth." Peace depends on grasping or not grasping phenomena, and grasping depends on attributing a meaning to something or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
There, you see, you make empirical statements ("There is no phenomena separate from consciousness") as though it is a fact (when it isn't) and then base your argument on that, but when this sort of statement is challenged, your response is basically the challenge is irrelevant because that's merely a philosophical discussion and doesn't relate to one's subjective experience.

Astus wrote:
How do you know of any phenomenon without experience? By reasoning. But through reasoning you don't get to any phenomenon, only theories. So, is there a phenomenon separate from consciousness? We can only theorise about it. Does that philosophising have any relevance to the path of liberation? It has not (cf. MN 63: the parable of the arrow; MN 2: ideas unfit for attention ).

PadmaVonSamba said:
then what is it that interprets the activity of the brain, the neurological and electrical activity of the brain, what experiences that as thoughts, as viewed objects, as emotions?

Astus wrote:
See the Avyakata-samyutta (SN 44) regarding why neither the sameness nor the difference of body and mind were asserted by the Buddha. In short, because the Tathagata does not posit a self (permanent substance) in one's realm of experience (i.e. the five aggregates and the six senses), as said for instance in SN 44.7 and SN 44.8.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Either phenomena is awareness, or it isn't.
And if it isn't, then what is?

Astus wrote:
As I said above, phenomena are inseparable from consciousness.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Buddhism is not like fixing unix servers: it makes universal claims about what is true and what is not, what is conducive to ending suffering or what creates more suffering, and basically it says that anything that does not aim towards liberation by definition will be creating more suffering. So recouch the question: does viewing a Picasso painting result in increased suffering, if for no other reason than it is delaying your "practice"? And if a non-Buddhist views a Picasso painting, is the idea that everything that person does is meaningless and only increases their suffering, including viewing the painting?

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is about fixing the problem is suffering. Nothing more, nothing less. It identifies the problem, describes the causes of the problem, identifies the solution and gives the method to reach the solution. The four noble truths. The rest Cone has already answered. Just a small supplement to that: seeing beautiful/pure (subha) what is ugly/impure (asubha) is one of the four distorted views (e.g. AN 4.49).

Something is meaningful when it is conducive to one's goal, and meaningless when it is not. Seeing the meaninglessness of life is meaningful on the path of liberation, and eventually, once the goal is reached, even the path becomes meaningless. Making up excuses to call various elements of samsara meaningful only strengthens attachment and hinders one's progress on the path. It shows that one still believes that there is some peace and contentment to gain from ephemeral experiences, while in fact true peace lies only in nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Does Buddhism allow for meaning outside the path of liberation?

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is the path of liberation, and that's what it is concerned about. For everything else there are all the other things.

gad rgyangs said:
no, but people who fix unix server errors usually don't claim that anything that is not useful for fixing Unix server errors is meaningless and a waste of time.

Astus wrote:
The question is "useful for what?". Usefulness/meaning/worth does not exist on its own, it is within a specific framework of values. Buddhist values are about liberation, that's how Picasso's art is meaningless.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Is Picasso's art worthless/meaningless from a Buddhist POV?

Astus wrote:
If by that you ask whether a piece of art is relevant to the path of liberation, then the answer is most likely no. There might be some exceptions, considering primarily Buddhist art. And here's another question: is Picasso's art good for fixing a Unix server error? Probably not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
2.Does it matter? If one thinks, for example, that no cancer is developing in the body simply because one is not aware of it, and that because one is not aware of it it cannot possible exist, then this would certainly lead to problems. In that case, perhaps it matters.

Astus wrote:
How is that related to the path of liberation? It is not.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.

Astus wrote:
An ultimate ground cannot be a cause of anything, otherwise it would be changing and conditioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm said:
People who think dharmakāya is truly existent are simply wrong, and suffer from an eternalist bias.
In reality the three kāyas are also conventions.

Astus wrote:
Linji says it clearly:

Therefore a man of old said, ‘The [buddha-]bodies are posited depending upon meaning; the [buddha-]lands are postulated in keeping with substance.’ So we clearly know that the dharma-nature body and dharma-nature land are fabricated things, based on dependent understanding. Empty fists and yellow leaves used to fool a child! Spiked gorse seeds! Horned water chestnuts! What kind of juice are you looking for in such dried-up bones!
Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘There’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma.
(Sasaki, p 17)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
There is plenty of stuff around that has not arisen along with awareness.

Astus wrote:
How do you know? What does it matter? It's like a discussion about the look of the most beautiful woman nobody has ever seen. Pure fiction.

PadmaVonSamba said:
There is no denying that awareness exists fundamentally.

Astus wrote:
An awareness without anything to be aware of is like seeing without anything to see. When one doesn't see anything, it is not called a sight. When there is nothing one is aware of, that is not called awareness. If not seeing is sight, then blind men are seers. If lack of awareness is awareness, then corpses are aware. Such a fundamental existence of awareness is like above, a baseless assumption, a work of imagination. As you agree:
Awareness cannot observe itself directly, just as eyes cannot look into themselves directly. But awareness can be observed as an object of awareness, when it arises with phenomena and manifests as consciousness just as eyes can see themselves when looking at their own reflection in a mirror.
That is, there is no experience about such a fundamentally existent awareness that you say is there. It is indeed strange that while it is so real, there is no direct information about it at all. Eyes and other sensory faculties are all conditioned things, one can describe their qualities and such. None of that can be said about your ground of awareness. So, what is its fundamental existence?

PadmaVonSamba said:
Furthermore, if you are discussing mening in life, then it is important not only to define what you mean by 'meaning' but also what you mean by 'life'.

Astus wrote:
I have http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=214690#p214690: "Life is one's own experience. What can of life could we talk about that is not experienced at all?"

PadmaVonSamba said:
Since this basic awareness cannot be found to have a cause other than itself, and since it has no defining characteristics of its own, and since it cannot be denied, or separated into any kind of 'non-awareness' parts, I would suggest that it is truly existent, non-specific, non-self, synonymous with the meaning of Dharmakaya and the essence of realization.

Astus wrote:
That shows very well how the attachment to self is the root of all beliefs in meaning. Religions and philosophies often tend to posit an ultimate soul/god as the basis of all, and that's where the Buddha said that no such thing can be found and it is total ignorance and the root of samsara. All phenomena are impermanent, selfless and empty. Something that is not a phenomenon is no different from non-existence, in other words, it does not exist. Attributing meaning to a non-existent thing is the reason why there is no actual meaning, but only mistaken ideas that life is meaningful.

PadmaVonSamba said:
It is the basis of the three poisons, the reason why all beings experience dukkha, and why all beings possess the potential for enlightenment.

Astus wrote:
Exactly. It is ignorance about the emptiness of phenomena. And since that ignorance is empty as well, we can be free from it. If such a basis were real, then either we are permanently deluded or permanently enlightened.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, there is phenomena separate from consciousness,
but there is no consciousness separate from phenomena.
It is important to make that distinction.
Consciousness is a level of interaction between awareness and objects of awareness (phenomena).

Astus wrote:
Phenomena are objects of awareness. How can there be an object of awareness without awareness?

PadmaVonSamba said:
Experience without awareness is impossible,
but basic (ground of) awareness without experience is possible
in fact, it is necessary
because experience only occurs conditionally
and physical objects of awareness cannot spontaneously generate awareness
much less, consciousness
which is why a brain does not know it's a brain.

Astus wrote:
You say that consciousness exists unconditionally? Then it were not consciousness/awareness at all, as it would be without anything to be conscious/aware of.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
But to say that these are empty of svabhava is not to deny them outright. And if they are not denied outright, then what is your explanation for how consciousness and phenomena interact?

Astus wrote:
There is no phenomena separate from consciousness. All we have is the flow of experience, and not anything beyond that. Since experience without awareness is impossible, I say that phenomena and consciousness are inseparable.

tobes said:
this is what I claim your position leads to.

Astus wrote:
As you can see, I don't posit any subject.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: the ten dharma realms is states of mind ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The five/six/ten realms are samsara itself, it is where beings are reborn. See this thread: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=12644

"The basic teaching of the Buddha is that our life is suffering and we transmigrate within the six realms of samsara because we live and act based on three poisonous states of mind : greed, anger/hatred and ignorance. All Buddhist practices are about cessation of suffering in samsara by being released from these three poisonous minds."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/pdf/dharma-eye/de13/de13_08.htm )

"In ten thousand kalpas and thousands of lives, how many times are we born and how many times do we die? This cycle of lives is samsara, caused only by blind clinging to worldly affairs."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/common_html/zuimonki/01-16.html )

In the official http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/sutra/scriptures.html we can find various references to the ten realms and even to birth in a pure land. The followings are from the http://www.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_1/kanromon.html.

"We also pray that your bodies, conveyed by this dharani-food, may leave suffering behind and gain liberation; that you may attain the joy of birth in heavens; that you may, in accordance with your wishes, be delivered to one of the pure lands in the ten directions; that you may give rise to the thought of awakening, practice the path to awakening, and in the future become buddhas; that you may never backslide; and that whoever first attains the way may vow to lead the others to liberation as well."

"With the good karma gathered in this practice, we repay the virtuous toils of our fathers and mothers, that the living may be blessed with joy and long life without distress, and the deceased freed from suffering and born in the pure land. May the four benefactors, sentient beings in the three classes of existence, and those born in the three evil destinies and eight difficulties all be able to repent their transgressions, purify their defects, entirely escape the round of rebirth, and be born in the pure land."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think the biggest mistake is to fail to see that Zen says nothing different from what is stated in the sutras. The second biggest mistake is to get lost in words and letters. Even the retarded version of Zen says that the transmission started with the Buddha, so it is the Buddha's teaching, and necessarily Buddhism.

The source of confusion is the way Zen is defined. In that sense, the word Dharma can be defined in several ways as well, both as something beyond all conceptual ideas and as something very much religious. Zen, just like Dharma, can be interpreted as the ultimate truth, and as such, it is beyond all methods and teachings. That's how people can say that Zen is not Buddhism, not a religion. And if we look at the everyday reality, it is no different from Buddhism, no different from a religious teaching. So, as Madhyamika masters have said several times, one needs to understand the two truths properly.

Here is what Sheng-yen says,

"People seek help, and their prayers are answered. It is common in every religion. In this respect. Buddhism is like other religions. Ch'an Buddhism, however, is different. Ch'an Buddhism penetrates directly to the original essence of Buddhadharma, and encourages practitioners to rely on themselves, and to solve their own problems. ... Since Ch'an espouses self-initiative, it can do without the religious, supplicating aspects of other Buddhist sects."
(Sheng-yen: Is Ch'an a Religion? in http://ddc.shengyen.org/cgi-bin/ccdd/show.py?s=09-06p0217 )

And then he says the opposite:

"Many people think that Chan practice depends solely on their own efforts, requiring self-reliance, while those who practice by reciting the Buddha's name depend solely on external help. Both of these views are incorrect. In reality, Chan practice also requires external help, and the practice of reciting the Buddha's name also requires one's own effort. One can hardly become an accomplished Chan practitioner through one's own efforts. In India, China and Tibet, all meditators need the support and assistance of teachers, Dharma-protecting deities, and the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. That is why Chan monasteries in China erect and worship the statues of Dharma-protecting deities such as the eight divisions of divinities and the four deva kings."
(Sheng-yen: http://chancenter.org/cmc/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ChanPracticeandFaith.pdf, p 2)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Not really - it only assumes that minds or consciousness have to have some kind of synthesizing or unifying ability such that a continuity of experience can occur. It doesn't assume anything about external reality, except perhaps that phenomenal content is 'given' to subjects. So the only assumption here is about what happens to subjectivity when that synthesizing ability fails - this is the text book definition of psychosis or schizophrenia, and I claim: very far from buddhahood or the direct realisation of emptiness.

Astus wrote:
As you say, it assumes that consciousness needs to interpret and synthesise external stimuli. That is, experience comes from some outer source and it needs to be transformed before it is understood in any way. That's why I said it is an assumption of chaotic external things.

tobes said:
Sure, so you take away the predication and misapprehension of svabhava. Phenomena can no longer have the meaning which relies on that predication and imputation. End of story?
No. To posit an end of story there is to reify emptiness into a something - in this case, a subjective state devoid of meaning.

Astus wrote:
You say that the realisation of emptiness results only in a subjective state devoid of meaning. As for the "subjective state", that's a questionable interpretation, as subject and object are both removed (emptiness of self). But I see no problem with being devoid of meaning, as that was the very goal.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Phenomenological meaning is not an attribution - in the sense of an imputation imposed upon. It is rather the activity of consciousness in synthesizing sensory impressions into a coherent unity,such that an experience of reality can happen in the first instance. Without that, we have something like schizophrenia - a chaotic and fragmented jumble of impressions, perceptions, ideas etc.

Astus wrote:
That is assuming there is chaos that needs to be organised. But we don't need to go there, as it is another theory similar to things outside one's experience.

tobes said:
Yogacaran texts are far more overt in expressing this, but nonetheless, I think it is absurd to twist Madhyamika into a denial of yogic experience, on the basis of its critical metaphysical project.

Astus wrote:
Madhyamaka is about attaining wisdom, and not about turning people into mindless idiots, so there is no danger of falling into denial of the aggregates on the conventional level. The middle way is empty and apparent together. What is removed is only the mistaken understanding of appearances as real substantial things, as meaningful phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Abandoning attachment to experience = abandoning linguistic and conceptual forms of meaning.

Still having "experience" after that [that is: a coherent relationship with the phemenonal world] = out of necessity, the experience of phenomenological meaning.

Astus wrote:
Attributing meaning to experience is conceptual attachment. What is phenomenological meaning?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
You are saying:
one should abandon one's experience

Astus wrote:
If by abandoning you mean not attaching, then yes. If you mean stopping all experience whatsoever, then no.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
So, nothing matters except that which should be abandoned,
which is our personal experience
because personal experience that is all the matters.
Or, more succinctly, "nothing matters except what matters, which we should abandon."

Astus wrote:
Meaning exists in one's experience, and that's what should be abandoned. In other words, attachment to whatever occurs. Whatever occurs, that is, within one's personal experience. Because one cannot be attached what is not part of one's experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
so, are you going like a ping-pong ball back and forth between personal experience and this ultimate perspective?

Astus wrote:
No. In http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=214590#p214590 you refer to I stated: "The Dharma is strictly and only about the fourth noble truth, the path of ending suffering." Suffering is not something out there, it is one's personal experience, just as the path is one's own personal journey.

PadmaVonSamba said:
composites do not require any cognitive awareness of them in order to occur..
They only require some kind of observance of them in order to arise as personal experience.

Astus wrote:
It is an irrelevant philosophical problem. What the Dharma is about is one's own experience. Experience exists only when there is awareness. Whether there are things outside one's experience or not is not related to the path of liberation.

PadmaVonSamba said:
If all that matters is one's own experience,
then the statement 'life is meaningless"
is false.

Astus wrote:
Life is one's own experience. What can of life could we talk about that is not experienced at all?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
That may be the case. That doesn't change anything.
Just because you conceive of something or don't conceive of doesn't alter it.

Astus wrote:
That's all that matters. Because the perspective that needs to be considered is one's own subjective experience. And from that point of view there is nothing else but one's own experience. It does not matter at all whether there is or is not something beyond that. As I said, what Buddhism deals with is suffering and the ending of suffering. Theories of a reality beyond one's experiential scope is for the philosophers to consider.

PadmaVonSamba said:
If you are suggesting that nothing arises conditionally prior to somebody thinking about it,
that's total nonsense.
maybe your experience of things hadn't happened yet, but that's all.

Astus wrote:
Whether such an idea is nonsense or not is not that easy a question, but irrelevant to Buddhism. What matters, as I have said above, is one's own experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Objects which arise conditionally were empty of inherent existence
long before the concept of emptiness was even conceived.

Astus wrote:
Things like "objects", "arise", "conditionally" are all concepts. Talking about a non-conceptual realm is a conceptual act involving concepts. Chapter 9 of the Vimalakirti Sutra makes this very clear.

Why is that? It is because no Buddhist teaching is interested in or relevant to explaining or discovering a physical or metaphysical reality. The Dharma is strictly and only about the fourth noble truth, the path of ending suffering. That's why positing an independent realm of objects arising conditionally is a mistaken view, a wrong approach. Mistaken and wrong in light of the path to liberation.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So, while 'emptiness' (sunyata) is, on the one hand, merely our correct understanding of phenomena
the fact that phenomena are in fact empty
is the same whether we 'convene' it or not.
If it were not already so,
asserting emptiness would be false.

Astus wrote:
Asserting anything is false from the ultimate perspective, i.e. emptiness. Denying is false as well. On the conventional level it is fine to differentiate between correct and incorrect. That's the realm of concepts. Emptiness can be a conceptual view, and as such it can be a correct or incorrect understanding of the Dharma. What emptiness really stands for, however,  is beyond all views. It is the very relinquishing of attachment to a conceptual reality. In other words, realising that reality is only conceptual, fictitious, illusory, a mental fabrication. So, there is nothing "before concepts". Assuming there is something, that's also just another concept.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
But free from samsara really must include not regarding phenomena as having any intrinsic value, or purpose.
this is what you mean by "meaningless".
But the contradiction is that by trying to be "free from samsara", to negate it as specifically "meaningless"
you are imputing it wth a meaningful (although admittedly uninviting) quality.

Astus wrote:
Meaningless means without meaning. It is not giving it a quality, it is removing the idea of meaning. Giving something meaning is giving it a value and a purpose. Removing that conceptual veil is seeing it without meaning, i.e., as meaningless. Making meaninglessness meaningful is still grasping a meaning, and not applying meaninglessness to it. It's like what they call in Tibetan madhyamaka a non-affirming negation. And here are two Chan examples.

Wuzhu often said:

It is because beings have thought that one provisionally teaches no-thought, but at the time of true no-thought, no-thought itself is not. (Mystique of Transmission, p 361)

And Baizhang's three stages elucidate the same:

For now just do not be confused and disturbed by any existent or non-existent objects; and do not stop and abide in disillusion, and yet have no understanding of nonabiding. (Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang, p 67)

PadmaVonSamba said:
Unfortunately, the trap of samsara is in thinking that such "fame", or the material gains one may make from such a career, will bring happiness, and they suffer when, ultimately, that does not last, and "fame and fortune" turns out to be hollow, or is quickly used up. But it isn't the job or the money that's the problem. It's "taking refuge" in that...believing it will bring lasting satisfaction, that is the problem. That's where samsara begins.

Astus wrote:
As above you have said, considering things meaningful is samsara. Seeing that they are without meaning, without the ability to provide lasting satisfaction, is liberation. And that's why it is the meaning that needs to be removed, not things that one attributes meanings to. However, once something has lost its meaning, why would one keep it or crave it?

PadmaVonSamba said:
But it is quite possible to engage in, and enjoy the temporary arising of the composites that fill our lives, without becoming attached to them, without relying on them as a source for something permanent. It is possible to be, for example, rich and famous, and not really care about that. We can be happy without relying on happiness.
Likewise, it is possible to experience appropriate sadness when those temporary things end, when loved ones and pets die, when the house is washed away, when one becomes ill, without dwelling in that sadness.

Astus wrote:
Enjoying without attachment is the same as suffering without attachment. As you say, one can be happy and sad without relying on them. That is, nothing actually changes. One loves good food, good films, good sex, it's just without any clinging. Similarly, one hates bad weather, bad smells, bad neighbours, except without relying on them. The difficulty I see in this is that it disconnects grasping from being delighted and disgusted by things. However, delight and disgust comes from the very attachment one has for various experiences. Not abiding in phenomena is not being moved by them. And not being moved emotionally is still not the level of non-conceptuality. Both pleasure and pain hold meaning. Pleasure is meaningful because it feels good, and pain is meaningful because it feels bad. Good feeling is something we like, and bad is something we hate. As the Buddha taught ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.011.than.html ), we suffer only for the loss of people we are attached to, not for those we are not. Renunciation is not avoiding what happens, not shunning experience, it is seeing them for what they are without attributing any meaning, and so not being moved by them to one way or another. See this one about not taking the bait: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.189.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Lindama said:
he is speaking to the samsaric perspective only which seeks meaning.

Astus wrote:
Yes, and the programme of "making life meaningless" is about samsara. Buddhism is about becoming free from samsara, through realising that it is meaningless, an endless round of birth and death.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 7:22 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Is there meaning in enlightened aesthetics, activities and communications?

Astus wrote:
Yes, and this has been another part of this thread, that making something meaningless and being meaningless are not exactly the same. The path is to make it so, and therefore before it is made meaningless, it is meaningful.

tobes said:
Is there meaning in the domain of the sambogakāya?

Astus wrote:
I think Linji explains well the two truths applied to the buddha-bodies.

What is my purpose in speaking this way? I do so only because you followers of the Way cannot stop your mind from running around everywhere seeking, because you go clambering after the worthless contrivances of the men of old.
Followers of the Way, if you take my viewpoint you’ll cut off the heads of the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya buddhas; ... Why is this so? Followers of the Way, it is only because you haven’t yet realized the emptiness of the three asamkhyeya kalpas that you have such obstacles.
(Record of Linji, p 10, tr. Sasaki)

According to the masters of the sutras and śāstras, the dharmakāya is regarded as basic substance and the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya as function. From my point of view the dharmakāya cannot expound the dharma. Therefore a man of old said, ‘The [buddha-]bodies are posited depending upon meaning; the [buddha-]lands are postulated in keeping with substance.’ So we clearly know that the dharma-nature body and dharma-nature land are fabricated things, based on dependent understanding. Empty fi sts and yellow leaves used to fool a child! Spiked gorse seeds! Horned water chestnuts! What kind of juice are you looking for in such dried-up bones!
Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘Th ere’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma.
(p 16-17)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
oushi said:
For most of us, meaningless will be seen as a dead end, simply because we cannot allow ourselves to go for it. Although, all my experiences with meaninglessness are very positive when it comes down to daily life, my thinking is still based on predictions, so I am unable to go outside of hopes and fears. The main concern is thinking itself. Although it continues in Meaninglessness, it is "unmanaged", that means, it's honest, and in nowadays society, being utterly honest is very risky. This way we come all the way down to the root of our problem. Culture and conditioned dishonesty. Those are not only those big lies, but also half-truths, white lies, cunning disinformation etc.

If you want to be a Buddha today, be utterly honest... if you dare.

Astus wrote:
I like what you say. And honesty, that's a whole different topic, but a fruitful one for sure.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Question on wake up sermone ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Appearance ( http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/X63/1219_001.htm ) means all the things that we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think. So the http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enHeartSutraWithAnnotations.htm says, "no form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas".


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Astus wrote:
Meaning can be sought for in the past, the present or the future.

Past meaning is nostalgia, the lost golden age. It is being saddened by the present situation and without hope for the future. It is a meaning for those who can't stop dreaming about an imaginary past world.

Present meaning is hedonism, enjoying life and seizing the day. It is a misguided struggle to hang on to whatever pleasure one can find, but it is mostly about failure to preserve happiness or strive for more delights. It is a meaning for those who can't see their own impotency to stop time.

Future meaning is utopianism, believing in a dream world. It is a faith in an unexplainable turn of events that makes everything perfect, that is, blind optimism. It is a meaning for those who believe that either themselves or some external power can do magic.

Some Buddhism related examples for all three.

Past: the three Dharma ages, that now we live in the era of decline and corruption
Present: be in the present, enlightenment is this present mindfulness
Future: enlightenment will come, sometime in the future in this life or the next, or perhaps even later

And then some quotes.

For emptiness does not proceed nor recede, and that holds good also for the Signless and the Wishless. To demonstrate that is to demonstrate all dharmas. But no one has demonstrated it, no one has heard it, no one has received it, and no one realizes it, in the past, present or future.
(PP8000 9.3; p 151, tr. Conze)

For the Tathagata has not apprehended any thought as past, as future, or as present, because thought is not really there.
(PP8000 12.3; p 176)

What lifetime will you use to experience this prediction, past, future, or present? If a past life, then the past life is already extinguished. If a future life, then the future life has not arrived. If the present life, then the present life is nonabiding. It is as the Buddha has explained, “O bhikṣus, you are in this immediate present born, aged, and extinguished.
If you experience this prediction with birthlessness, then the birthless is the primary status [of Hinayanist enlightenment]. Yet within that primary status there is no receiving the prediction, and also no attainment of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 4, p 97, tr. McRae)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
That is it has a particular kind of casual functionality, which is not reducible to linguistic dependence. An empty appearance, sure. But one in which its particular causal functions are efficacious.

To say that all keys are illusions is to subtly obscure the critical point that some keys open some doors and other keys open other doors.

If you really believe that all keys are pure illusions, throw yours away.

Astus wrote:
That's a differentiation made between true (functional) and false (non-functional) conventional reality. However, both are conventional, in that in the ultimate analysis there is nothing found that one could attach to. Even true conventional phenomena are ungraspable when investigated. And the critical point from the Buddhist perspective is to remove all clinging, and not to set up a nice theoretical system for the sake of philosophical explanation. In other words, Buddhism is a type of key used to unlock ignorance, and not for anything else. When used for other things, that is incorrect and has no useful results. That doesn't mean there are no other keys, as one can happily research the nature of deep sea algae using the relevant scientific methods, while a microscope is only misleading if one wants to understand Serbian epic poetry.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
If that's true then why is there no history of anyone doing this? Was everything meaningless to the Buddha?

Astus wrote:
Meaninglessness, just as meaning, is a Western concept, not Asian, as previously said.

shel said:
If you understand then why don't you address my questions?

Astus wrote:
Cone and Malcolm have already answered you in many ways.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Meaninglessness is not meaningless, significantly. You, for example, seem to find it quite meaningful.
If the path to liberation liberated then obviously it was not useless. How does that not make sense to you?
If the path to liberation did not liberate, well, then perhaps it offered essential meaning, so it's all good.

Astus wrote:
This has already been answered. Meaninglessness is gradually realised through various stages. The last thing relinquished is the raft.

Regarding the problems with the understanding of the illusoriness of keys and other things, I heartily recommend this work: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/wheel-analysis-and-meditation


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
It's just an idea to see everything as only illusion, so that too must be an illusion and false.

Astus wrote:
Naturally. As I have said before, meaninglessness is also meaningless, and the path to liberation is to be abandoned in the end as another useless idea. This I have said right from the beginning of this thread.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Does that include arguing that one should abandon "meaning"?

Astus wrote:
Arguing is better to be philosophising, as part of a systematic analysis. Otherwise it is just like people gossiping.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
You believe that meaning is illusory because it exists in our minds and is not something "external and real." By this logic everything is an illusion, including "external and real," and the problem with that is if everything is an illusion then nothing is an illusion.

Astus wrote:
Except that this is not an ontological matter but Buddhist teachings that are used to remove a view that results in suffering. So, when everything is actually seen as only illusion one sees correctly.

All conditioned phenomena
Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow
Like the dew, or like lightning
You should discern them like this
(Diamond Sutra, ch 32)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: putting an end to love
Content:
Sonrisa said:
I understand...sort of. I remember reading pne teaching where he said that we're born out of sexual desire. While I think that extreme sexual desire can be a hindrance, but if it wasnt for our parents engaging in intercourse, we wouldnt be here cultivating. Forgive me if Im misinterpreting this.

Astus wrote:
There are three conditions for birth: mother, father, karma. Now, our birth is because of our karma, and the mother and father are conditions for the body. So, if we had had no desire/attachment to be born, we would not have been born.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The links you provided in your original post essentially point out that there is no ultimate reason or purpose for our being here. There is nothing that really suggests that we are part of some divine plan or anything like that.
That's really pretty much all they were really saying, as far as I can tell.
Is that your basic point as well?

Astus wrote:
Yes.

PadmaVonSamba said:
What is the point of this thread again?
What is it you are trying to say?
can you sum it up some how?

Astus wrote:
See my previous posts:
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=212499#p212499
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=212800#p212800
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=212520#p212520


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
When you say falseness or illusoriness you mean impermanence, right? Impermanence doesn't mean that something is false, it means that it changes. Impermanence doesn't mean illusion, it means that it changes.

Meanings change like everything else apparently changes. That doesn't make meanings meaningless. That doesn't make them false. That doesn't make them illusions.

Astus wrote:
Impermanence means illusion. Why? The past is already gone, the future doesn't exist yet, the present cannot be grasped. So, where do impermanence and change exist? In our mind only, in a conceptual realm. And the illusion is believing that it is something external and real. Meanings, like change, are conceptual creations of the mind, not something external and real. External and real means independent from the mind and self-existing.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Jesse said:
There will always be pain,  it's inevitable so long as we have a body which can feel it. Suffering isn't all pervasive though, once you stop thinking so damned much life can be quite enjoyable, this is exactly why people continue living in spite of so much suffering, and to suggest otherwise is crap. Pain and suffering are two completely different things.

To be honest, the ultimate joy is actually being alive, and we rarely see it because we are so caught up in shit philosophy, thinking, etc.

Astus wrote:
Physical pain is a different kind of suffering than suffering by change and suffering by conditioning.

As I see it, thinking and arguing that one should do things one way or the other is philosophising.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
If meaninglessness is the antidote for meaning as you say, then the only workable course would seem to be giving up any sort of religious belief or practice, because religious belief and practice perpetuates a system of meaning.

Astus wrote:
Seeing the falseness, the illusoriness of meaning is the practice. And yes, all attachment needs to be given up.

"If even my correct teachings are to be abandoned, how much more incorrect teachings?"
(Diamond Sutra, ch 6)

shel said:
I don't know what life is inevitably full of but there is also pleasure, joy, and satisfaction in life. To deny this would be to deny your own experience, in favor of a belief system.

Astus wrote:
There are three types of suffering (SN 38.14), of what the suffering of conditioned existence is all-pervasive. It is the clinging to the five aggregates, that is present for all deluded sentient beings. All the good and joyful things, those are the "allure of sensuality" (MN 13). They are the bait. And once hooked on it, there is a drawback, i.e. suffering. And from this drawback, this trap of samsara, the Buddha offers an escape. This is seeing clearly (yoniso manasikara) the set of allure, drawback and escape (assada, adinava, nisarana).

"There is no satisfying sensual desires, even with the rain of gold coins. For sensual pleasures give little satisfaction and much pain. Having understood this, the wise man finds no delight even in heavenly pleasures. The disciple of the Supreme Buddha delights in the destruction of craving."
(Dhp 186-187)

Objection: Even though the body is impermanent, it still has pleasure. In response, Aryadeva says:

Harm is certain for what is impermanent.
What is harmed is not pleasurable.
Therefore everything that is impermanent
Is said to be suffering.
(CS II.25)

Harm is certain for an impermanent thing that is damaged by impermanence. What is harmed is also not pleasurable. Therefore, all things that are impermanent are said to be suffering because harm is the definition of suffering. Consider the example of pouring water on salt. All the water poured on salt will become salty. Similarly, because everything that is impermanent is painful, constructed things have only a painful nature. Here we say:

Since all constructed things
In this world are harmed
By being impermanent,
All constructed things are indeed painful
(Candrakirti: Four Illusions, p 152)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If you assert a self, then both meaning and meaningless apply.
If you assert no-self, then this thread has no point to it.

As long as you go on about "meaning vs. no meaning"
you are and essentially asserting a self that denies itself.

Astus wrote:
Same could be said about self and no-self. There is the teaching of no-self to remove the concept of self. Once the self is removed, no need for no-self either. So it is with meaninglessness. As long as there is meaning, one needs to investigate it, and see that such a meaning is false. When all grasping to a meaning has been shattered, then meaninglessness has no value either.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Buddhism doesn't reject "meaning". Buddhism rejects a self to which the concept of "meaning" has any application.

Astus wrote:
Without the concept of self there is no meaning. Without meaning there is no concept of self. Because the concept is the meaning, and self is a concept. Not conceptualising a self is not giving meaning to a self. Otherwise, self is the most meaningful thing we have.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
And because everything is supposedly left behind in the end, that doesn't make the vehicle meaningless.

Astus wrote:
Not is meaningless but has to be made meaningless. When it is made meaningless, it is left behind.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
From the Dzogchen perspective, this is why so-called "lower yanas" are called "causal yanas": they all claim that you need to do something to "cause" or "achieve" liberation. They say "we have been trapped in samsara since beginningless time, do this that and the other and after incalcuable eons (mahayana) or in this life (vajrayana) you will finally, after lots of hard work, achieve liberation".  Dzogchen asks "what makes you think you are in bondage? who has put you in bondage and where are your chains? Is waking from one dream into another dream an achievement?"

Astus wrote:
Aren't the five aggregates without any self from the beginning? Still, attachment doesn't go away just by hearing that.

"I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice." (MN 70; cf. Ud 5.5)

Zen has a different idea of course, as it propagates sudden enlightenment.

[At the place of] Great Teacher Third Ancestor [Jinazhi Sengcan], once the novice [Dayi] Daoxin at age fourteen made prostrations to the ancestor and said, "I entreat the master with your compassion to give me the Dharma gate of release and liberation."
The ancestor said, "Who has bound you?"
The novice daoxin said, "Nobody bound me."
The ancestor said, "Then why are you seeking for liberatoin?" Daoxing hearing these words had great realization, and worked as a follower there for nine years.
(orig. in Jingde Chuandeng Lu, vol 3, T51n2076_p0221c18-c21; tr. Leighton & Okumura, in Dogen's Extensive Record, p 540)

A fourteen-year-old boy sounds young for enlightenment, but it's not that exceptional. The Lotus Sutra talks about the eight-year-old daughter of the dragon king who turned into a buddha. The Dhammapada commentary has on record seven-year-old arhats ( http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ 96, 110, 406). But I think the winner is the three-year-old Ratnadatta, who instructs and corrects Maudgalyayana, Shariputra and Manjushri in the http://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=volume&vid=30, although that's not when he attained enlightenment, so he could be disqualified from this list.

But that is a completely different topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
As others have pointed out, if you assert meaningless as a the content of enlightened experience, it is just an assertion - not the experience.

Astus wrote:
Meaninglessness is not a content of enlightened experience, it is the path, the method used to relinquish attachment that is based on the idea that something has a meaning. So, meaninglessness is only as much an experience as non-attachment is. Meaninglessness is the antidote for meaning, and when the sickness is gone, there is no need for the medicine. But this thread seems to show that meaninglessness is a medicine with too many side effects and causes confusion, although not too different from teachings like suffering that makes many reject Buddhism as a total pessimistic view, and then everyone tries to excuse the first noble truth that it's not what they think it is, although in fact it is indeed what they think, a clear statement that life is inevitably full of pain and sorrow.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
plwk said:
Nagarjuna is bad huh? Wait until you read these ones attributed to the Conqueror Himself...
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/is-this-sutta-true/

Astus wrote:
Today aggressiveness and promiscuity are (almost unquestioningly) attributed to men. Is that misandry? We don't call it that because various studies prove it. But if we consider gender differences not genetic but cultural (and mostly fictional generalisations and ignorant prejudices), then in the context of that sutta those attributes of women could have been true.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
that is why most of Buddhism, like most of Christianity and all other religions, is for people who hate themselves and are bitter and resentful towards life. Fortunately, in Dzogchen (and I'm pretty sure in Zen too) there is a breakthrough to an understanding of the nature of reality that is the exact opposite of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment: that is, that your nature is the same as the nature of all reality, and it is fundamentally pure (empty) and inexhaustibly creative and respsonsive. You don't need to do anything for this to be the case, it already is.

Astus wrote:
There's no need to go as far as Dzogchen or Zen for the idea that "your nature is the same as the nature of all reality", as that is a basic principle of the bodhisattva path. In practice, however, neither Tibetan nor East Asian Buddhism differ from their Indian predecessors in being a monastic tradition that teaches leaving home and various forms of hermetic life as the right course of action. It is one of the earliest Mahayana polemics to call Hinayana stuck in nirvana (for many: a false nirvana) and rejecting samsara.

"Jamgon Kongtrül said that, in order to begin our practice of getting used to the view, laying the foundation is most important. The foundation is renunciation mind. Renunciation means revulsion for this endless, meaningless, worldly life that is constantly creating suffering, whether directly or indirectly. Some amount of renunciation mind is very necessary as a foundation. This is a very important remark by Jamgon Kongtrül because we really cannot take refuge until we have renunciation mind. As long as we do not have renunciation mind, we always think that there is an alternative, a different way to solve the problem."
(Dzogchen Primer, p 104)

"when we realize that all the achievements of the six realms of samsara are futile, insubstantial, and meaningless, we lose our appetite for them."
(Tulku Urgyen: Repeating the Words of the Buddha, p 41)

"Perceiving that any attempt to renounce or accept anything is meaningless, you let go in a state of resting imperturbably."
(Longchenpa: Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, p 396)

Here are the comments that partially answer each other and clarify this subject. Then I continue with summing them up and answering the missing points.

tobes said:
What about compassionately helping sentient beings? Not an action? Not a meaning? Not an intention?
...
emptiness implies the relinquishing of ordinary meanings derived from the conventional symbolic order. Plus desires, intentions, purposes which are predicated on that. But does it imply the relinquishing of any other forms of meaning?

PadmaVonSamba said:
You are really attached to this idea of meaningless, aren't you?

shel said:
And incidentally, something need not be substantial, real, or even particularly attached to, to be meaningful. Fiction, that we fully realize as being fiction, can be far more meaningful than mere facts.

tobes said:
Ah, I see that you mainly have in mind linguistic or discursive forms of meaning...which are necessarily conceptual.
...
Because it is coherent, it has meaning. Otherwise enlightened mind is just a random expression of chaos.

Indrajala said:
Again, in the Mahāyāna it is not about embracing meaninglessness. It is a double perspective: one understands both the conventional and ultimate without being attached to either one. This is because one sees how existence of meaning exists by virtue of a relative opposite: meaninglessness. In the absence of meaning, there is no substantial non-meaning to cling to either. One stands nowhere like empty space. This transcended perspective is where the path of language is cut away, and actually leads to a very active bodhisattva path rather than nihilism if properly achieved.

Affirmation of a negative is as problematic as affirmation of a positive. Both are views, and all views are to be abandoned. Emptiness as a view is consequently poison. Even emptiness dissolves under analysis.

Astus wrote:
In the OP I wrote:

Before engaging in the path to enlightenment one naturally believes that life is full of meaning. That there are things (wealth, sex, power, knowledge, etc.) that are worth the trouble. And that is clinging, that is attachment, the great evil. Seeing that all phenomena are empty clears away that attachment. In other words, meaninglessness needs to be realised.

And that makes Buddhism more than nihilism (in the Western philosophical sense), it is the ultimate refutation of what non-Buddhist everyday people call life.

But then, if we move on whether Buddhism itself is meaningful, or if meaninglessness is meaningful, then the answer to both are no, because they are need to be left behind in the end. That one tries to call something meaningful, that is the desire to hang on to something. To hold on to emptiness or nirvana, that's among the wrong views in Buddhism. What is left then to call meaningful? Compassion and saving all beings? The bodhisattva activities are possible only because they don't abide anywhere, they don't hold on to anything, not even liberation, much less the concept of "sentient beings" that need to be saved. Plus, what does saving beings mean? Saving them from their own lives, from what they believe in as important and meaningful, and make them realise it is all samsara.

"That all perception, all discrimination, all logic are meaningless from the supra-mundane point of view is the very nature of Buddhahood and of emptiness. Accordingly, even the Buddha's forty-five years of propagating the Doctrine is here wholly negated by the assertion that the Buddha preached not a word."
(Nagao: Madhyamika and Yogacara, p 42)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Right, so especially because it happens gradually as you say, by your logic the more meaningless the Dharma is to someone the more realized they must be, and the more meaningful it is to someone the less realized they must be. People who devote their lives to practice, like Buddhist teachers, must be the furthest way from realization and the most deluded.

Astus wrote:
Do those teachers think of the Dharma as substantial, real, something to be attached to?

Since the arrogant say that they have apprehended something, they cannot be said to be firmly established in genuine pure conduct.
(Gangottara Sutra, in Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, p 39)

(After the Buddha had described the arrogance of sravakas and bodhisattvas, i.e., their attachment to various attainments and teachings) Upali asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One, how can a monk be free from arrogance?"
The Buddha answered Upali, "If he is not attached to any doctrine, no matter how inconceivable it is, he is completely free from arrogance."

...

One who thinks about the teaching of emptiness
Is a fool, lingering on the wrong path;
Explanations of emptiness are mere words;
Both words and emptiness are inapprehensible.
One who contemplates the teaching of quiescence
Should know the mind is empty and unborn.
The mind's reflections and observations
Are all futile and meaningless.

...

When I speak of the practice that leads to realization,
I mean detachment from all forms.
If one claims to have achieved anything,
He is far from realizing the Sramana's fruit.
No dharma has a self-entity;
What is there to realize?
The so-called realization is no attainment at all:
To understand this is called attainment

(The Definitive Vinaya, in Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, p 272, 273, 277)

'One does not attain Buddhahood through the body, nor does one attain it through wisdom.' Why? If one looks for wisdom one cannot find it. Even if one looks for the T, it cannot ever be found. Nothing is attained, nothing is seen. All dharmas are originally nonexistent. To think that they exist causes attachment. If they do not exist, to say perversely that they do is also attachment.
(Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, BDK edition, p 36)

Resolute Mind asked, "Have you, sir, attained the Surangama Samadhi?" The Indra king replied, "Could the characteristics of 'attain' and 'not attain' exist within this samadhi?" Resolute Mind said, "No." The Indra king said, "Good youth, you should understand that when a Bodhisattva practices this samadhi, there is nothing that is attained in any of the dharmas."
(Surangama Samadhi Sutra, BDK edition, p 32)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Why would anyone practice something that they felt was meaningless? Because it's entertaining and fun?

Astus wrote:
Meaninglessness is realised gradually. It means that one sees the futility of pursuing something, letting it go. Practice is to let go, release attachments.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
If what you're saying is true, it would mean that people with no inclination towards any sort of spiritual practice are actually more advanced spiritually, and that those who practice like their "hair is on fire" are desperately deluded. That makes no sense at all.

Astus wrote:
See what I what just before that: "The Dharma is a skilful means. It is not the ultimate, it is not liberation per se. So, first one believes Dharma has meaning, but eventually it is left behind as another meaningless thing."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Saving all beings???
Content:
seeker242 said:
But of course that does not mean that you don't help the child. You would still help the child, but all the while still knowing that they are, and always were, perfectly ok to begin with.

Astus wrote:
You have already answered your question.

"All Buddhas pronounce the Dharma to teach and transform sentient beings, each delivering as many sentient beings as the innumerable sands of the Ganges, enabling them to enter nirvāṇa. Yet the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases. Why not? Because the definite appearances of sentient beings can never be captured. Hence, the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases."
(Sūtra of Mahā-Prajñā-Pāramitā Pronounced by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Nirvana is indeed beyond life and death, but where is it said that nirvana is the negation of all meaning? What Pali/Sanskrit/Tibetan/Chinese term are you pointing us to?

Astus wrote:
No P/S/T/C term. Meaninglessness can be related to emptiness mostly.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Surely there is a difference between attachment and meaning?

Granted, one can be highly attached to meaning. But isn't there a case for saying that meaning simply happens? Is there no meaning in the dharma taught by those who are liberated? That seems to be an absurd proposition.

Astus wrote:
Meaning is grasping, it is the concept that something has an essence and a purpose. We could separate meaning as a verbal concept and there are non-verbal concepts, so it might be the case that there are two forms of attachments to phenomena. But this is not necessary.

The Dharma is a skilful means. It is not the ultimate, it is not liberation per se. So, first one believes Dharma has meaning, but eventually it is left behind as another meaningless thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
I suppose the disagreement is that where you say only the path of liberation makes sense (and therefore, all others are meaningless), I say many paths make sense, but the path of liberation is the highest, or most privileged, or most meaningful.

If life was truly meaningless, even from the standpoint of those who have relinquished it, then why do they not choose to take it? i.e. Why do enlightened ones not kill?

Astus wrote:
My argument here is not whether this or that is meaningful, but that the Buddhist path is about gradually making life and everything meaningless, including the path itself at the end. To reverse that, yes, at the beginning good deeds are meaningful, then liberation is meaningful, then there's nothing left to be meaningful.

Killing, like other actions, require a meaning, require an intention that is based on a concept. With meaning removed there is no concept, no intention, no action.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
reddust said:
I don't think men have it that good compared to women. You reproductive parts are carried outside of your body and you seem to be distracted because of that.

Astus wrote:
Never thought of it that way.

reddust said:
I think it's difficult to be a human and gender is just a distraction.

Astus wrote:
It's great we can always find some reasons to feel superior. As I see it, gender is as good an excuse as any other.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
justsit said:
To Astus: There is no doubt it is more difficult to live as a woman, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as "worse" to be a woman. At least in First World countries. I took your previous post to mean "worse" as in lesser or inferior. Hence my reply.

Astus wrote:
I meant only harder conditions (even in highly developed countries), and that harder conditions imply bad karma. In that sense, women have worse karma than men. And some Buddhist works point to the biological differences (primarily motherhood) as another implication of the more difficulties of a woman's life.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
rory said:
Buddhism originated in Magadha which was Jain the Jains had and have a very good opinion of women and there were and are women renunciants. Later Brahmanism took over and yes, only Brahmin males can perform those rituals necessary to the king. Buddhists started to compete and there we get that unecessary patriarchy & misogyny. That's what ruined Hokkeji as the nuns there had no access to the state esoteric rituals, which were taught on Mt. Hiei and Mt. Koya (today women can train there:)

Astus wrote:
In the Nikayas there are some respected woman teachers, although there were a lot more men. Women are said to be incapable of being born as various higher gods or a buddha (MN 115). Wives serve their husbands (DN 31, AN 5.33, Thig 1.11, Sn 1.2). Although ultimately there is no difference between genders (SN 5.2). All three ideas (birth restriction, servitude, genderlessness) were carried on in Mahayana, and as with practically everything else, they were extended and elaborated on. What new concept came up most prominently is women's impurity. However, impurity (because of giving birth and menstruation) resulted in strong restrictions only in Japan, so it'd be difficult to blame Brahmanism for that.

rory said:
And if Nagarjuna himself wrote that he definitely was not a mahasidda.

Astus wrote:
A mahasiddha is someone who has realised that passion is actually wisdom. Does being a mahasiddha come with perfect body and mind? I don't think so. The realisation of emptiness does not require any scientific, scholarly or artistic knowledge. That is, being a mahasiddha doesn't mean one cannot speak utter nonsense. Enlightened beings are not infallible or omniscient. Or, if one wants to believe that enlightened ones are actually like superhumans, then no living person can ever match the criteria.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
justsit said:
Really??
Guess it depends on who you ask...

Astus wrote:
I can only rely on those who work in that area. For instance:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://www.womenlobby.org/?lang=en
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW_full%20report_color.pdf (PDF)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Nagarjuna was a Mahasiddha.  He could not see past the cultural norms of his time?  He could not recognise hatred (the miso- in misogyny is the Greek word for hate) when he saw it?  As an Arhat wouldn't he apparently have overcome the fetter of ill-will?  We (currently) label it misogyny, but even without the label one would think that an enlightened being would see the ill-will involved in the specific behaviour.  One would hope.

Astus wrote:
I think there is to much attributed to concepts like enlightenment, arhat, bodhisattva, mahasiddha, etc. Sure, the root poisons of greed, hatred and ignorance are removed. But that doesn't include exaggerated qualities and superpowers, nor special knowledge not related to the path (see declared and undeclared teachings, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html )

Beating women could be refuted as erroneous based on the Buddha's own teachings:

"Here someone, abandoning the killing of living beings, becomes one who abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid aside, gentle and kindly, he abides compassionate to all living beings." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html )

However, the above statement does not necessarily rule out beating as a form of education. Such an act could be argued to be done out of concern and kindness, not with the intention to kill or maim. Just like beating children was considered perfectly all right and proper parenting a couple of decades ago. So, calling it misogyny might be the wrong word, as there was no hate involved. Male chauvinism or something similar sounds more fitting, as women were considered inferior in almost all aspects. And that's why birth as a man is generally the desirably thing in Buddhism. But this is not because people hated women. They were simply viewed as very different from men, and that difference meant a lower status in every way.

Modern people may see many apparently degrading statements about women in Buddhism as misogyny. What is not taken into consideration is karma. Even today if we look at women's social status it is worse than men's. This means that women have worse karma than men. So, being a woman is worse than being a man. And although it could be argued that it's all because of social norms, education, wrong thinking, etc., however, that is a post-Enlightenment rationalist thinking. Modern people often believe that social status is a matter of other's doings, something that could be changed. Traditionally, Buddhism is unaware of such a concept, and teaches that everyone gets what they deserve because of their karma. Compassion, helping others, giving donations are all important, just as being kind and caring. But those are things done on a personal level, out of one's own level of Dharma practice, and not in order to bring about "heaven/Pure Land on Earth" but to generate merit and because those are the right things to do. Taking the teachings to the social and political level was a rare thing in the past, and didn't always mean something noble.

So, was Nagarjuna a misogynist? I don't think so.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
If life were intrinsically meaningless there would be no such thing as karmic consequences. The very idea that the nature and quality of an action comes to fruition as circumstance and experience means the universe is, over time, "demonstrating" the truth of the action. If the Dharma is to be believed, we live in a world where the quality of actions are being illuminated by Truth.

Astus wrote:
Karma is generated by ignorance. Ignorance is believing that there is a meaning to hang on to. Karma is how all beings keep repeating the same things over and over again, following blind passions.

I don't know what you mean by "truth of the action" or "illuminated by Truth".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
They may not be accountable for them but they are also not obligated to perpetuate them.  We, as ignorant worldly beings, are not obligated to perpetuate them, so why would enlightened beings?

Astus wrote:
We copy the cultural ideas without even recognising them. In fact, "culture" is a modern Western cultural idea. And we want Buddhism to fit out perspective on reality, and that's only normal and expected. No different from the process of Buddhism integrating into the Chinese cultural sphere, and similar historical events. If once in the future an English Buddhist canon emerges it may not contain a single misogynist idea or reference. That's what canonisation is about after all. But to the Indians of that era even the concept of misogyny may not have occurred. It is another Western invention.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Nobody is disputing that, but if Mahasiddhas are misogynists too, it doesn't say much for enlightenment does it?  Either that, or we will have to agree that women are actually an inferior category of human beings.  Or we will have to say that Mahasiddhas are not enlightened.

Astus wrote:
There are other options.

1. Reinterpret the meaning of "woman". In the Nirvana Sutra there is a nice section where it says similarly nasty things about women, and then explains that all beings/humans are women who have not realised buddha-nature, and those who realised it are men, regardless of their biological sex.

2. What is considered appropriate changes by time and culture. Buddhist rules are mostly about monastic life, where there are no wives and concubines to rule over. Still, at least in Chinese monastic rules, beating is a possible punishment for misbehaving monks. So, advising the beating of women can be a compassionate thought.

3. As for women having more desire than men, nowadays it is believed that's the other way around. Both are worldly conventions. Why should enlightened beings be accountable for the beliefs of ordinary people?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
greentara said:
Astus,  "Aimlessness, Apranihita is actually an attainment, a synonym for nirvana, and not a practice, although in a sense it can be used as a method."
Can't it be used as an enquiry such as who needs this, or who wants this? Or who is it that really has no agenda?

Astus wrote:
I don't think there are such rules for or against it. But it's not the intended meaning and context. The general rule is that one should use whatever helps in removing attachments and gives peace and freedom. So, if it works for you, go for it.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
tobes said:
Surely what is meaningless, from the Buddhist point of view, is a certain kind of life. Not life per se.

Astus wrote:
Life is samsara. One can spend innumerable lifetimes as a very good person, generate immense good karma, and that's still within samsara. From a Buddhist perspective, only the path of liberation makes sense. That path is about becoming free from samsara, from life and death. And that is done by seeing that life is meaningless, it is not worth being attached to. And the path of liberation - that exists only within samsara - is left behind as well, once liberation is reached.

tobes said:
i.e. the process of being on some kind of path is surely highly meaningful, and the outcome of arriving at bodhi is also surely meaningful.

Astus wrote:
Meaningful, as it is a process of realising the total meaninglessness of life. And once liberation is reached, all meaning has been abandoned. Even the meaning of liberation. So, it is a gradual path to complete meaninglessness, absolute non-attachment.

tobes said:
What seems to be missing from your analysis is that **something** follows from relinquishing the desire to hold on. To remain (philosophically) only at the point of relinquishing is to fail to see that relinquishing is simply the method. What is that something? Well, for one it is characterised by pretty glowing adjectives in the Nikayas, isn't it?

Astus wrote:
Nirvana, that glorious goal, is freedom from life and death. It is the negation of all meaning, and so the end of pain and suffering. Because there is no life and no pain, it can be called deathless and peaceful, even eternal bliss. It is not annihilation, but it is devoid of all meaning. To create a meaning out of meaninglessness, that is called the wrong way to grasp a snake.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Fair enough. I guess what I'm thinking is that if most English speakers were to try to "make life meaningless", they would probably be generating what Buddhists would consider kleshas, like some of the things found in this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_factors_%28Buddhism%29#Twenty_secondary_unwholesome_factors

Astus wrote:
I agree. It shows well, as Indrajala mentioned before, that the teaching of emptiness can be a dangerous one. And there is the old teaching on grasping the snake/Dharma correctly. Similar dangers are not considered where people emphasise positive sounding teachings like buddha-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
greentara said:
Astus, "The Third Door of Liberation is aimlessness, apranihita.  There is nothing to do, nothing to realize, no program, no agenda."   I like it, how sweet it is!
This Zen  teaching also reminds me of neo advaita. Of course the mind is promiscuous and loves to wander.  If no effort is made to bring it back to the here and now then it will chatter on endlessly. I'd say apranihita is only good  for the very ripe.

Astus wrote:
Apranihita is actually an attainment, a synonym for nirvana, and not a practice, although in a sense it can be used as a method. It is achieved by contemplating suffering. The other two marks of existence correspond to the other doors: anitya-animitta, anatman-sunyata.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I actually have a lot of sympathy for what you are saying in this thread, Astus. In English, I feel that the word "meaningless" is not really appropriate though, it's connotations are too "negative". There is a Buddhist word that seems related to what you are talking about, 'apraṇihita'. Does that have anything to do with what's on your mind?

Astus wrote:
I think its negative sound is not a bad thing. I consider it a shock value.

Apranihita is a good word, but "meaningless" has a bigger range. Apranihita is not seeing a nimitta to aspire for. Meaninglessness is that, but it also heavily points to the conceptual fabrication that one has in the background of every "sign" one "wishes" to reach. And as this thread shows as well, while most of us don't think much about the importance of signs and wishes, to find some meaning is important. Thus, calling life meaningless - although the title of this topic is actually "make life meaningless" and not "life is meaningless" - gives the opportunity to reflect on one's preconceptions and attachments.

By the way, Thich Nhat Hanh has a very positive https://curiouscrook.tumblr.com/post/46469553964/no-program-no-agenda-thich-nhat-hanh-on-aimlessness.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
OBVIOUSLY, you do not find Buddhism meaningless, so how can you say that it is meaningless? To be frank, it sounds dishonest of you to say that it's meaningless.

Astus wrote:
If Buddhism were meaningful one would need only to become a Buddhist but never reach liberation. With liberation even Buddhism is left behind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
You're not saying that Buddhism is meaningless, you're saying that it's the only thing that has real meaning. This is the normal attitude for any religious practitioner.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is meaningless as well (raft parable, non-abiding even in nirvana). That is, meaninglessness is also meaningless.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Just curious though, are you having second thoughts about Buddhism or just engaging in intellectual exercise?

Astus wrote:
This is meant as an investigation into a possible angle on Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
What I want to know from you is how you would picture a perfectly meaningful existence.
Would you be a buddha statue floating on a lotus in outer space?
Give me some idea of the alternative.
...
So, is meaningful subjective or objective?

Astus wrote:
A perfectly meaningful existence is a perfectly ignorant existence. It is subjective, of course, because different people consider different things meaningful, although there are some cultural trends (school, career, family, consumption to no end, etc.). A floating buddha statue might be meaningful for some devote enough for that. One can make up an ideology for any activity, any attachment.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
I am very curious as to why you neglect to mention Buddhism, the FNTs or the Eightfold Path in your examples of what meaning can be attributed to. If you believe that Buddhist practice is meaningless, that seems to mean that you don't believe it's true or has any purpose. It seems to mean that you don't believe practicing the Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of suffering, and like Sisyphus, we are all doomed to endless cycles of birth and death. But that can't be what you believe. Can you somehow explain how all this could possibly make any sense?

Astus wrote:
Sure, one can attribute meaning to Buddhism, and Buddhists do just that. However, unlike other things, the goal of Buddhism is to remove all meaning. If you look at the first post in this thread, it says just that.

How this makes sense? The belief in meaning is the cause of birth and death. Seeing the meaninglessness of life - past, future and present - is liberation from it, and that is the very goal of Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Do you have a link for that essay? I'd be interested in reading it.

Astus wrote:
I do, but it's in Hungarian. However, no doubt you find similar sentiments in the writings of other Christians who consider Buddhism an atheist nihilist philosophy (not even a religion). I recommend late 19th and early 20th century texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Personally to me this is a much more claustrophobic, stifling idea than emptiness, which implies no beginning. middle, or end. Combine that with the non-abiding Nirvana concept and it's absolutely beautiful in comparison, IMO of course.

I don't really see how Buddhism is any more "anti-life" than other philosophies, even in it's Thervedan form, which I think is the easiest to accuse of that, theistic systems appear to posit meaning simply because they avoid explaining it, the exact same existential conundrums exist, Buddhism just actually looks at them.

Astus wrote:
In other religions, while they are rather anti-life regarding our earthly existence, they provide some hope for something far away. Buddhism eventually - not necessarily from the start - removes all hopes (and fears). First one learns that there are heavens, then instead of heavens one should aim for nirvana, then one should forsake even nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Astus wrote:
From three posts, with practically the same points, and then how I translate that.

smcj said:
"No-self" means the continuity is fundamentally free, not that there is no continuity.

Indrajala said:
There's a kind of different perspective on that. In the absence of self, there is no bodhisattva, but that doesn't mean there is nothing at all, or some abyss to dissolve into. There is still tattva, or reality as is. There's neither existence nor non-existence. At such a transcended level, the bodhisattva ideal is naturally manifest as all the cosmos is encompassed in a womb-like embrace. It isn't a matter of staying on in saṃsāra, but just that the transcended state is naturally active participation in reality. Saṃsāra is participation in reality with wrong view. Nirvāṇa is participation in reality with realization, not an escape hatch.

Anders said:
Bodhicitta may look like meaning in life, but actually, I think genuine Bodhicitta and meaning in life are sorta contrary to each other. To find meaning is to have concepts - true Bodhicitta is void of this - it's a signless impulse that grows from the realm where things are simply SUCH, wherein there is nothing that comes from here or goes to there that can be designated as having any purpose or meaning. To really manifest bodhicitta is to leave behind the ideation that gives rises to meaning in life and the one whom might appropriate such meaning as being relevant to him/her.

On a more relative level, where bodhicitta also involves concept, it works fine as a 'meaning of life' project though.  And certainly, one must be wary of appropriating the idea that there is no meaning to life at all. The point is not to see no meaning to life. But rather to see how we construct it and then let it go. What happens beyond that is wordless.

Astus wrote:
To put them into the context of a meaningless life, being meaningless is not a negation of life but the affirmation of life as it is, without meaning. Hating life would be giving it a meaning, that it is something bad and detestable, like in some religions. Meaning removed is attachment removed. Without attachment there is no reason to be engaged in life, to pursue goals and hope for good things to happen. And that kind of meaningless life is what the Buddhist path is meant to achieve.

As for the great compassion towards all beings, it is about seeing how those who attach meaning to life suffer, and bringing them to the realisation of the futility of all their efforts to make life meaningful. Saving beings is making their lives meaningless, just as it is for the bodhisattvas who don't consider even saving beings and liberation meaningful.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
kirk5a said:
Someone who causes trouble for others might do it just for the sport of doing it, or out of sheer selfish arbitrariness, or whatever cookoo impluse happens to spring up in the moment. There doesn't have to be any meaning. I don't see how removing all meaning keeps one within right action, right speech, right livelihood. There is the 8-fold path, if we're trying to accurately represent what Buddhism actually teaches.

Astus wrote:
If it's all just impulses, there is no understanding of meaninglessness. That is only acting out of ignorance and habit. Meaninglessness is to see the impermanence and emptiness of all, to use Buddhist terms. Removing all meanings means removing craving and hatred, means liberation. So, you actually ask, what stops a buddha from committing all sorts of bad things.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
kirk5a said:
If someone thinks life is meaningless, what's to stop them from causing trouble for others? Does such a person think it doesn't matter what they do or don't do? That would be a catastrophic mistake. Why would "meaningless" spur someone on to achieve liberation? Why not instead just wallow in despair? People with the "meaningless" view have been doing that forever, it's not exactly insightful.

Astus wrote:
You could raise the same questions regarding such terms as selflessness and emptiness. The difference here is that "meaningless" is a native English term/concept, while "emptiness" is kind of artificial and foreign.

The will to cause trouble to others presupposes a meaning to do that. Either personal gain or hatred. It can presuppose a sense of justice that needs to be served by punishing others. And so on. That's all meaningful.

Liberation is not attaching meaning to anything. Meaninglessness is not another meaning, that would be very stupid indeed, and that's when people feel despair and depressed.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
What would "meaning' look like? How would it manifest?
What would make "meaning" meaningful?

Astus wrote:
Meaning can be attributed to practically anything. Examples: raising a family, reaching a higher pay grade, climbing Mt Everest, buying new pants, learning a new skill, completing a retreat.
Something is meaningful because one believes it to be important, fulfilling, satisfying, true, real. In other words: self, independent, ultimate, eternal. Any object of attachment is being attached to because it is considered meaningful.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
But since death is not the finality that secularists believe it to be, the continuity that experiences the significance (meaning) of prior actions is not. (imo)

Astus wrote:
That "continuity" is either a form of self-view - if taken to be one's personal identity - or it is samsara. And that is something to be free from.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
A beggar is not necessarily content with the bare necessities of life.

Astus wrote:
Beggar, that's what bhikshu means. I didn't refer to the modern situation of homeless people and such. It is the voluntary leaving of home and choosing the life of a beggar, a monk.

shel said:
In my opinion, the "ideal life" proposed by any viable religion would be one of responsibility and cooperation.

Astus wrote:
That's practically the same as the Confucian (and others, like Communists) critique of Buddhist monasticism. However, it is unlikely that suddenly a large number of people would go for higher ordination.

shel said:
It's unclear what you mean by "more than" nihilism.

Astus wrote:
I mean that is is more because it not only denies any meaning of this life but in fact the entire existence of everything. All are made by karma, and karma is what one needs to become free from.

shel said:
In that scenario what most people in the world do is get religion, they find meaning in religion, a religion like Buddhism for example, and suddenly rock rolling becomes a Dharma Gate.

Astus wrote:
A Dharma Gate is a method to leave behind all meaning, all attachment. And eventually leave behind that Dharma Gate too. Finally, leave behind leaving behind itself (not attached to nirvana).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
jeeprs said:
many people put an end to their life because they feel it is meaningless. It is a real and serous problem, one remedy to which is the practice of Dharma, which is, among other things, about learning to live in a meaningful way. I will never agree with nihilist intepretations of Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." (Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus)

Buddhism, somewhat similarly to existentialism, is about facing the reality of life. Unlike existentialism, there are past and future lives that one should be free from, and it's an entire cosmology that poses the problem of unsatisfactory life. Meaning in Buddhism exists on the relative level of karma, where one can work for a better life through meritorious deeds, however, in the end it's all samsara. And because it is samsara, living in a meaningful way is impossible, spare striving for liberation from it. So, in Buddhism, suicide is simply pointless, because life goes on even after death.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
It's important not to confuse arhatship with lacking compassion.

Astus wrote:
I see, it was ambiguous. I meant the "philosophy of compassion" that exists in Mahayana, that is used as an explanation for the bodhisattva activity. It should also be noted that (arya) bodhisattvas are free from samsara, and they could choose to leave everything behind, but there are many versions of what a bodhisattva is depending on what era of Mahayana we look at, what tradition, sutra, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Been chewing on it and I think that maybe it is fair to say that Buddhism expects you to ultimately give up on "meaning", at least meaning in the sense that the term is used in other traditions.

Astus wrote:
Yes, such words as "meaningful" and "life" I use to fully put it in English and leave behind Buddhist terminology as "emptiness" and such that do not really have deep associations in one's mind and strike no emotional cords. If you look into Indian or Chinese Buddhist texts, you don't really find the topic of the "meaning of life" as it is a Western idea. One thing that triggered this topic was an essay written by a Calvinist minister in 1912 where he compared Buddhism with Christianity, and found that the teaching of the Buddha is in general against life. And he was quite correct, if you look at it from his perspective. And the Buddhist solution of nirvana is what else but removing oneself not only from this life but all sorts of life, the entire world of existence, and there is no promise of eternal heaven or eternal soul or anything like that, although some like imagining that to exist in the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
jeeprs said:
I don't agree with it. Bodhicitta is compassion, it is literally love or loving-kindness, it is not simply non-existence or vacuity.
So where does it come from? What is the source of compassion, if life is completely meaningless? What gives rise to 'compassion'? And isn't compassion meaningful? I find it tremendously meaningful, myself. Is that a mistake?

Astus wrote:
Compassion is seeing how those who believe in a meaning suffer because of that. It is exactly because the meaninglessness of existence is realised that one knows the root of suffering is the search for and grasping of meaning. If compassion becomes meaningful, if it is something of great importance and relevance, that is nothing but attachment to a self, to a view. Thus a bodhisattva sees no beings to save and that's how they are saved.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
by 'meaning' aren't you referring, basically, to the notion of a pre-destined purpose?

Astus wrote:
Meaning is both essence and function. That is, both as something existent, essential, substantial, true, real. And something that has a purpose, a role in life, a goal to achieve, a future. A "pre-destined purpose" is one of the possible meanings of meaning.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Matt J said:
And if there is no meaning to be found in that, then it should be no surprise to be unable to find meaning in enjoying a cup of coffee, playing with one's kids, or suffering a toothache.

Astus wrote:
What meaning do you find in that?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
flavio81 said:
What it is seeking is the ultimate liberation from all mental conditioning; from "wrong views" in the ultimate sense of the word.

Astus wrote:
All views are wrong views. Samsara, life and death, is being attached to a view. That is, grasping a meaning. No meaning, no view, no life, no death, and that is liberation. That's why I said it is liberation from life, the removal of all meaning.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Indrajala said:
One is aware all things lack inherent existence and hence can be tentatively qualified as meaningless, but simultaneous one sees the conventional nature of meaning and can freely operate within it without being emotionally or mentally compromised, or such is the ideal.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's the bodhisattva ideal. And the only reason the bodhisattva "stays in samsara" is because of great compassion. That motivation is about showing the same meaninglessness of life, bringing about the renunciation of samsara, that the bodhisattva already possesses. There is no enjoyment of samsara, no suffering from samsara, there is only the compassion to save beings. Therefore, all engagement in samsaric things by a bodhisattva is illusory, as the Vimalakirti Sutra explains. So we can see that a bodhisattva's attitude toward samsara is different from an arhat only because of compassion, but the total renunciation is there at the same time, and no meaning is given to anything at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
1. what are you going to renounce?
2. The point is not to 'take refuge' in composite phenomena as a source of the cessation of suffering. That's all.
So, go and enjoy stuffing your self with pizza, just don't think it means you'll never feel hungry again.

Astus wrote:
Renunciation is renouncing all meaning one attributes to life, death and whatever else comes up.
Is there any sane person who believes that one never becomes hungry again after eating no matter what amount of food? I don't think so. Craving after food again and again, that's quite common. In the context of eating, what is it that one considers it meaningful or meaningless? Eating is meaningful when there are rules to follow, importance to believe in, purity to maintain, etc. Eating is meaningless when such views about food are seen as false. As you say, when it is not a refuge, not a religion.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Right, the problem is....the very concept of looking for "meaning" in things is samsaric, not just the samsaric "things". That's the whole point, meaning can't be found. So happiness, contentment, liberation, whatever, it has to come from something other than this apparent constant need we have for "meaning", which I think is connected entirely to false conception of a self.

Astus wrote:
Yes, the problem is with looking for a meaning, imagining a meaning. Thus, meaninglessness is something one has to arrive at, by removing that grasping for a meaning. Grasping a meaning is the attachment to an imagined essence and function, just as you say, it is the false conception of a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Because, even if one merely applies the teachings of the Shravakayana, every life situation can becomes a vehicle for liberation.  Even if it is not the "instantaneous" liberation promised by (some of the) Mahayana and the Vajryana, every situation is still an opportunity to gather merit.

Astus wrote:
So, life is meaningful, because there is always an opportunity to see its meaninglessness and become free from it. Gradually, or instantly.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Well, in the Great Vehicle it seems that the ultimate meaning of life is helping others along the way to our own liberation, or perhaps truly helping others after our own liberation, either way you want to slice it. To me it seems that the message is that life IS meaningful

Astus wrote:
Yes, the sole aim bodhisattvas and buddhas have is to liberate beings. Liberate from life and death, that is, show them that all is impermanent and empty, without any lasting or real value. And we may call that the meaning of the bodhisattva's life, that after they themselves have seen how meaningless everything is, to show others the same. Is teaching meaninglessness meaningful? Not for the bodhisattvas themselves, who see that all beings are nothing but empty fabrications.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
you seem to make it sound like renunciation and the path has something to do with the external. again, this is a hinayana/theravada monk approach.

Astus wrote:
If there is no motivation to build a career, a family, achieve fame and wealth, then it is only logical to say one does not pursue those things. From thoughts actions come. Renunciation is a mental attitude, but it necessarily appears in one's daily life. So, if one sees no point in hoarding plastic Pokémon figures, one does not collect them. Also, only in Japanese Buddhism exists such a thing as a bodhisattva monastic ordination, not anywhere else.

KonchokZoepa said:
it should be noted that Buddha opened 84,000 different Dharma Doors and no doubt this worldly life renunciation is one door.

Astus wrote:
All teachings are aimed at liberation from samsara. This is true for all Buddhist traditions. And that liberation is the complete renunciation of life and death. So, this is not only about what in Tibetan Buddhism they categorise as "the path of renunciation".


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The path is about moving away from dualism. Phenomena is empty.

Astus wrote:
Away from being engaged, not phenomena themselves. We are ourselves phenomena. It is the attachment that needs to be removed.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I'll tell you an interesting story. ...

Astus wrote:
Seeing life's meaninglessness does not mean living in this or that way. Buddhism sets the ideal form of life as the renunciate (not necessarily an ordained monastic). The point is that all goals but liberation is futile in Buddhism, and liberation is leaving behind all aspiration and goals. As Linji said, "If you engage in any seeking, it will all be pain. Much better to do nothing." (Sasaki, p19)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
kirk5a said:
Do you mean - there are no goals, other than liberation, that are worth achieving?

Astus wrote:
Yes, like that.

kirk5a said:
If so, I don't agree that is all Buddhism is about. That's primarily because, since we do want to focus on that hard-core reality - the reality is, we are here. Therefore, the matter of liberation becomes tied to the matter of participation. One's manner of participation then, is entirely relevant and meaningful. And Buddhist teachings have a lot to say about that.

Astus wrote:
Participation in what? Life? One is already bound to all sorts of things, and liberation is about ending that. The path is moving away from being engaged in phenomena, in life.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
we need not to be monks in forests to advance on the path.

Astus wrote:
I didn't say one must be a monk to be a Buddhist. It is simply the ideal way of life, full renunciation. And so aspiring on the path means aspiring for renouncing life.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If you truly believed that life is meaningless,
and that the only worthwhile activity is striving for liberation,
you wouldn't have wasted time posting to this forum.

Astus wrote:
Besides that it is a waste of time, it could as well be considered bodhisattva activity.

PadmaVonSamba said:
If you read to the bottom of Miao Yun's "What is the Significance of Life?"
(the link you provided)
it reads:
Life is meaningful. Not only should we discover its worthiness, we should also realize its ultimate significance. With this human life, we can progress to the attainment of Buddhahood. How precious our lives are!

Astus wrote:
And so I wrote in the OP: "the only meaning Buddhism provides is to achieve liberation." And that's what your quote says.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
it sounds nihilist to say this precious human rebirth is or should be meaningless.

also vajrayana offers such a wide variety of skillful means that having a normal life should not be a problem to a person of the highest capacity.

Astus wrote:
It is nihilist. Vajrayana offers skilful means to what end? Liberation. Liberation from life (and death). And while there is contemplation on the preciousness of life, it is precious only because one can practise the Dharma. And then there is the contemplation on the meaninglessness of samsara.

Also, why would one want to stick to any normal life?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I believe that Buddhism makes life meaningful rather than meaningless.

Astus wrote:
Care to elaborate?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 6:54 PM
Title: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Astus wrote:
There was a topic https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3286. I can only agree that life in Buddhism is meaningless. And it is not only meaningless, it is samsara, beginningless and endless dissatisfaction. Miao Yun wrote a chapter http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f12.htm that sums up neatly that the only meaning Buddhism provides is to achieve liberation. Similar conclusions were drawn in the mentioned topic. What is forgotten is that Buddhism is not about saying how things are but how one should see them.

Renunciation and bodhicitta are qualities to develop. Before engaging in the path to enlightenment one naturally believes that life is full of meaning. That there are things (wealth, sex, power, knowledge, etc.) that are worth the trouble. And that is clinging, that is attachment, the great evil. Seeing that all phenomena are empty clears away that attachment. In other words, meaninglessness needs to be realised.

Such a view found in that realisation is not unique to Buddhism. Philosophers and religious thinkers all talk about it. It is in the face of apparent meaninglessness that people come up with various answers. They created answers because of the fear of nothingness. The Buddha, on the other hand, taught that it is that desire to have something to hold on to is the root of the problem.

The ideal life proposed by Buddhism is that of a beggar, who is content with the bare necessities of life. Thus, being busy with family, career, study and the other distractions of life that most of us call normal things to do, is meaningless and even harmful from the Buddhist perspective. And that makes Buddhism more than nihilism (in the Western philosophical sense), it is the ultimate refutation of what non-Buddhist everyday people call life.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
Merely saying that emptiness is defined as unconditioned does not addressed my question, which was how is it possible to have a thing that is both conditioned and unconditioned at the same time.  Perhaps, you are saying it is possible as long as it is defined as possible.

Astus wrote:
The problem you raise exists only because you suppose 3 separate things: a substance (the thing) and two opposing attributes (conditioned, unconditioned). (Although here it could be said that a box can be both big and small (1 substance, 2 attributes), but that's only because the attributes exist in different context.)

Emptiness means simply the lack of independent essence/substance. That is, empty = without essence/self/etc. and it is not an added quality of something. Empty = not eternal, not independent. And that lack of essence is an unconditional truth, because it is not created by something, not caused by anything. It is simply the absence of substance.

Such absence of independent essence is shown by things being dependently originated. Something does not exist on its own, it exists because of various causes and conditions. That interdependence is the fact of being conditioned.

Thus conditioned and unconditioned are true for everything at the same time. That is: nothing is eternal and everything is impermanent at the same time. Not being unchanging is the unconditioned part. Being of a changing nature is the conditioned part. Actually, it is stating the same thing from different perspectives. Neither part exists without the other.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
But let's get to the real point.  If the True Self is beyond the conditioned how can one achieve it by relying on relative (conditioned) methods?

Astus wrote:
That's one thing. But I have yet to hear about an actual practice that is a meditation on/with the "true self".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza & Visions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thigle,
"Solid vision" like "pure vision" can appear out of "ignorance", or as expression of knowledge, which is the end of "ignorance"
What is the difference then? The supposition that pure vision has no external source but "self-generated". That is not the case, however, as there are conditions for the pure vision just as for the solid one. Both appear as visual phenomena, and only mentally makes one a difference between solid and pure, but not visually. And that mental difference is just the supposition that pure vision is self-generated. And there is another assumption here.

Unknown said:
The described natural capacity and development of "knowledge" closes this important gap.

Astus wrote:
That idea of capacity and development do not exist in Zen, so it cannot be used as an explanation or basis for the occurrence of pure visions distinct from other sensory phenomena. Consequently, both solid and pure are interpretations not made in the Zen tradition, thus even if they came up during meditation, they would not be handled in any special way.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
steveb1 said:
When Buddha made self-references, just what kind of thing was he referring to, if it wasn't a self?

Astus wrote:
There is the relative, everyday truth, and there is the ultimate truth. Thus one should know the difference between the teachings and utterances of the Buddha.

in order to express the meanings they know, they follow the accepted language. Afterwards they are not forced to reconsider. Thus, good son, the saints, being freed from language through their holy wisdom and insight in this regard, realize the perfect awakening that reality is truly apart from language. It is because they desire to lead others to realize perfect awakening that they provisionally establish names and concepts and call things conditioned or unconditioned.
(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2; tr. Keenan)

The Buddhas have designated a self;
And have taught that there is no self;
And also have taught that
There is neither self nor selflessness.
What language expresses is repudiated because
The domain of thought is repudiated.
Unarisen and unceased:
Reality is just like nirvana.
(Madhyamaka Sastra, 18, 6-7; Ocean of Reasoning p380, 382)

Those who develop fabrications with regard to the Buddha—
The unextinguished one who has gone beyond all fabrication—
And are impaired by those fabrications,
Fail to see the Tathagata.
Whatever is the essence of the Tathagata,
That is the essence of the transmigrator.
The Tathagata has no essence.
The transmigrator has no essence.
(Madhyamaka Sastra, 22, 15-16; Ocean of Reasoning p450-451)

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
(Yamaka Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
"What is your practice SoB?"

Son of Buddha said:
Enlightenment is the True Self......so whatever Buddhist practice leads to Enlightenment leads to the True Self.

but if you are asking if there are Buddhist monks who have claimed their practice lead them to True Self/Enlightenment then yes there are quite a few.

Ajahn Mun
Ajahn Maha Boowa
Vijja Dhammakaya is said to lead to True Self
Dolpopa stated one could gain True Self through Kalachakra practice.
and a bunch of chinese and japanese chan/Zen monks claim their meditations lead to True Self/Enlightenment....I can get you a list of a ton of names if you want it will take a little while cause I have to write my friend from Taiwan for it)
also you will attain True Self in the Pure Land.

Astus wrote:
An interesting claim for universal validity. Although the majority of Theravada (unlike the Dhammakaya movement) is clear about anatta, as in the Abhidhamma and such; and the Madhyamikas (unlike a few Tibetan teachers) refute again and again all sorts of self - according to your interpretation, they in the end teach "True Self".

However, I still fail to see the practical value of such a belief in a self.

No mention of self in such classic meditation texts like the Anapanasati, the Satipatthana and the Kayagatasati Sutta. No self in Zhiyi's famous manuals like the Smaller Samatha-Vipasyana or the Six Gates. No self asserted in Kamalasila's three Bhavanakramas either. However, they do talk about removing the mistaken idea of a self, and such a practice has clear practical value in liberating one from suffering.

So, putting aside the theory, where is the practical side of the "True Self" concept? Or is it just another name for enlightenment, just a stylistic thing that some might prefer over such terms as nirvana and liberation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza & Visions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thigle,

Could you say it then in a less technical way? I don't think I understand what you mean.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Jikan said:
What implications does this discussion have in terms of practice?

Sherab Dorje said:
My sentiments exactly, which is why i asked SoB what his practice was, to see how his theory integrates into his practice.  To see if it can be liberatory.

Astus wrote:
I'm also curious to hear about the practical side.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
If there is such an thing as an eternal "Truth", then it has to be active and present now.

Astus wrote:
I agree, an eternal anything must be obvious now or hidden forever, otherwise it is not eternal. Now what is apparently eternal? Emptiness, aka dharmadhatu, aka dharmakaya, etc. Eternal change.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Astus wrote:
Self - that's a thought, a concept, an idea.
No self - that's a thought, a concept, an idea.
True self - that's a thought, a concept, an idea.

Thoughts come and go, they exist only dependently. And no matter what magnificent concept it is one likes to hold on to, it is definitely no different from any other concept in that it is impermanent, dependent, empty. On the apparent level thoughts are all different, but their nature, their essence is universally and permanently that they are without permanence, independence, self. This truth is clear and obvious for all who looks at it, and it's quite logical too. What use is there asserting or denying some imaginary self?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza & Visions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thigle,

If I can follow you, the difference between solid and pure visions are the presence or absence of duality (subject-object). The non-dual view, i.e. the middle way, is not defined by any visions, but whatever appears is either pure or impure depending on the view. Why should special rays and lights appear? I see no reason for that. But even if they appear, they cannot be but conditioned appearances, no different from any other. To use your example, the broken straw in the water is the pure vision itself, and there is no other vision (i.e. samsara=nirvana).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza & Visions
Content:
thigle said:
The experimental context for my question to the dogen-followers is: Sitting in front of the sky or in darkness, just the way like one is sitting in front of the sky or in darkness.

Astus wrote:
One can see strange things in front of oneself even by staring at the wall or the floor, if one stares long enough, and that's more about mental distraction than being aware and free. It doesn't really matter what kind of sensory experience one has during zazen, as that's not the point. I don't see how total darkness or open sky could make a difference in that, black or blue are both fine.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
Mind functions with karmic winds, Rigpa functions with the wisdom wind.

Astus wrote:
You agreed that during remaining in rigpa one still hears noises, etc. and said that they are karmic products. At the same time, when remaining in rigpa, one has thogal visions, and they are wisdom products. Only sems has karmic products and only rigpa has wisdom products. Are sems and rigpa present at the same time? Can one be attached and non-attached concurrently? Because if yes, buddhas can still be afflicted. So that's why I don't really see how what you say is possible at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
You have a film on a movie projector. As you focus the image on the screen, the image appears to become brighter and more clear. But you have not changed or altered the film inside of the projector in anyway.
Likewise, though the visions appear to increase and decrease, they are not actually increasing and decreasing.
You can consider them to the visible expression of the mind essence, this is why these appearances are termed wisdom appearances since they do not arise from mind.

Astus wrote:
Are you saying that one always experiences the same visions, except that there are times when one properly focuses and times when not? That is, every experience is the same vision, but without the right eyes, they look like the ordinary five elements, but with the right eyes, they are the buddha families? Personally, I always thought of such a connection between elements and buddhas as rather symbolic, and not in a literal way that instead of a green recycle bin I see green Tara.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
No, but the visions are not objects of the senses. If you close your eyes, they arise anyway. They arise in the dark where your senses cannot perceive anything. They are not objects of the senses.

Astus wrote:
Dreams and imagination are not objects of the physical senses either, and it doesn't mean they are anything extraordinary.

mutsuk said:
Still, lights, noises, etc. are not given any special status there, they are not the natural unfolding of the nature of mind.
They are karmic perceptions. THogel visions are not like this.

Astus wrote:
Differentiating between products of mind and products of rigpa means separating mind and rigpa. Either then mind and rigpa separated as difference between ignorance and wisdom - both are functions of the same mental continuum - or they are separated as minds of two different beings. If they are like two different beings, it makes no sense to me to have two minds. If they are functions of the same mental continuum, it is not possible to have both function at the same time, thus either everything is perceived with ignorance or with wisdom. In other words, either everything is the product of karma or the vision of enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
From a Dzogchen perspective, everything that is not Dzogchen is incomplete.

Astus wrote:
Claiming superiority over others is not a unique idea. The result of such a view is that there are many different sects, as they simply fail to convince each other. It seems many Kagyu teachers are more easy going in this regard. For example those already quoted at the beginning of this topic, and people like Lama Shang:

Just this mind alone, which is completely empty, clear, aware, and lucid, is what is called the perfection of wisdom, luminosity, mahamudra, dzokchen, and dharmakaya.
(Mahamudra and Related Instructions, p 77)

or Tsele Natsok Rangdrol:

Resting in the unaltered mind is the essential meaning of all the countless, profound, and vast meditation instructions, such as mahamudra, dzokchen, result as the path (lamdre), severance (cho), and pacification (shiche). Nevertheless, these different kinds of instructions exist because individuals differ in their understanding.
(p 301)

mutsuk said:
THey are not mental fabrications, they are the visionary expression of the glow of Rigpa.

Astus wrote:
The nature of mind is without beginning or end, the visionary expressions are not. As they have beginning and end, they are dependently arisen, and as such, they are fabrications.

mutsuk said:
The mind (sems) is conditioned, Mind-itself (sems-nyid) is not. The ordinary mind (sems) functions in the mode (tshul) of ignorance (ma-rig-pa) while Mind (sems-nyid) functions in the mode of Rigpa.

Astus wrote:
Can their be a function that is not conditioned? That would mean eternal existence.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
They do, but very few people understand what they are.

Astus wrote:
Shouldn't it be widespread at least within Tibetan Buddhism then? Many mahamudra teachers were and are familiar with dzogchen.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
The visions in dzogchen are not conceptual constructs like visualizations of the creation and completion stage.

Astus wrote:
Do those visions occur without any instruction or method whatsoever? If yes, then there's little point in teaching it. If no, how are they not conceptual constructs? True, during the creation stage one methodically and regularly needs to build up the visualisation, while in thogal one needs to let it unfold into a complex vision, and I'm not debating this difference in the method.

However, normal dreams are not intentionally created by oneself, still they are understood as conceptual constructs. Everyday experience of houses, trees, people, etc. are not intentionally created, but they are also conceptual constructs. Even the language is not something one creates for oneself, but it is clearly a conceptual construct. Visions of shamans and mystiques are not taken to be their own imagination, but they are mental creations nevertheless.

Visions in thogal have a special status based on the idea that because one remains in rigpa, it is not one's own doing. However, remaining in rigpa does not eliminate the six senses, does it? Still, lights, noises, etc. are not given any special status there, they are not the natural unfolding of the nature of mind.

Malcolm said:
It is not really a process of removing afflictions, it is more of a process of afflictions becoming undone on their own.

Astus wrote:
Being in the natural state is being free from afflictions, isn't it? One practises thogal by remaining in rigpa, that is, free from afflictions and concepts, so why the need for afflictions to unfold? True, this is a good explanation to back up the need for further practice and using thogal after one has ascertained the nature of mind and gained a stable footing in trekcho, so I'm not questioning the efficacy of the teaching, the method and the tradition. However, it seems somewhat illogical to me to say that on the one hand the nature of mind is the nature of buddha, and on the other that at the same time there are karmic imprints to clear out, because this presupposes that there are two minds.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
thigle said:
And if knowledge/transparency is "stabilised" while you looking at the sky like you looking at the sky, typical thögal-"developments" appear, because there's no grasping.

Astus wrote:
Then it should occur to everyone without grasping, not only those following the dzogchen teachings. However, they are not really discussed anywhere else. Or, those visions are induced by looking at the sky, remaining in darkness, and similar conditions conducive to visions.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
In the perspective of the practice of Thögel, Rigpa remains conceptual at the level of Trekchö because its dynamism has not be "activated".

Astus wrote:
If such dynamism naturally unfolds from rigpa, there is nothing need to be done besides being in the state of rigpa. Being in the nature of mind is what mahamudra is all about, still, there are no such visions as in thogal. Trekcho is also being in the nature of mind, but no visions there either. So, either only in thogal one rests in the natural state and everyone else is deluded, or there are certain factors that induce the visions, and in that case it is a willingly used method. As you say, outside of thogal the natural state is a conceptual fabrication, so while others claim that their meditation is free from concepts, you deny that. Such a perspective is equal to saying that only one's own system is true and the rest are false, although here I fail to see the reason behind that, as I don't see how mahamudra (and others) still maintain a conceptual state.

mutsuk said:
With the two stages you do something with your mind , you visualize. With Thögel you don't visualize, you contemplate the arising of the dynamism of your natural state.

Astus wrote:
That depends whether only thogal knows of the nature of mind or others too.

mutsuk said:
They are natural visions not visualizations imagined by the mind.

Astus wrote:
Don't they occur to the mind, aren't they experienced within mind? If yes, they are no different from any other phenomena, being mental fabrications without any substance. If no, they are not experienced at all. Or is there a second mind besides mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza & Visions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Whatever occurs inevitably disintegrates and dissolves. The teaching of impermanence is at the heart of the Buddha's doctrine, and it is a straightforward guide to liberation. Zazen is about being buddha, and buddha is non-attachment. Zen is not being affected by the six kinds of appearances, so even if buddhas appear in one's meditation, that's only the work of the devil. At the same time, Dogen creatively combines the two truths in his Muchu Setsumu, stating that the realm of visions/dreams is the realm of buddhas, in other terms, there is no difference between ordinary and enlightened experience. Consequently, nice visions, bad visions, neutral visions and no visions are equal.

Your mind may feel as though it is sinking or floating, dull or sharp, or as though you can see outside the room, inside your body, or the body of buddhas or bodhisattvas. ... These unusual and strange conditions are all sicknesses that occur when the mind and breath are not in harmony.
( http://antaiji.org/?page_id=7136&lang=en )

Someone who tries to discern me in form
Or seek me in sound
Is practicing non-Buddhist methods
And will not discern the Tathāgata
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html#div-26 )

If one wishes to see the Buddha then one sees him. If one sees him then one asks questions. If one asks then one is answered, one hears the sutras and rejoices greatly. One reflects thus: 'Where did the Buddha come from? Where did I go to?' and one thinks to oneself: 'The Buddha came from nowhere, and I also went nowhere.' One thinks to oneself: The Three Realms—the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of the Formless—these Three Realms are simply made by thought. Whatever I think, that I see. The mind creates the Buddha. The mind itself sees him. The mind is the Buddha. The mind is the Tathagata. The mind is my body, the mind sees the Buddha. The mind does not itself know the mind, the mind does not itself see mind. A mind with conceptions is stupidity, a mind without conceptions is nirvana. There is nothing in these dharmas which can be enjoyed; they are all made by thinking. If thinking is nothing but empty, then anything which is thought is also utterly nonexistent.'
(Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, ch 2, tr P. Harrison, p 21-22)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
I mean, you certainly know that in the two stages one works with the mind (sems) and does visualizations (dmigs pa, and other technical words for "visualize") while in Thögel one works with Rigpa (and its dynamsim, rtsal) and has visions (snang ba) which are a completely different thing.

Astus wrote:
Working with rigpa means what? The view that appearances are only illusory phenomena, "the play of the nature of mind". Doesn't Vajrayana in general have the same understanding that deities are to be viewed as mental appearances without substance, and the understanding of the twofold emptiness? Doesn't thogal include instructions about how to induce such visions, using postures and other techniques? Dzogchen may have its own form of explanation that is different from anuttarayogatantra, but that doesn't mean that they don't follow the same process of the build up of a vision and then the vision's dissolution. That's why I said it is like creation and completion.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
in thogal the four visions appear not because the "natural" state is somehow lacking; they appear in their sequence because persons possess affliction and afflictions attenuate the visions as as they naturally unravel the visions first increase and then vanish. However, the idea that at the end of the four visions there are no appearances is a complete misconception.

Astus wrote:
The process is a removal of afflictions, and the visions are a sign of that, so they don't appear simply because of the natural state, and thus their disappearance is the final accomplishment. I didn't think dissolution here means total nothing, otherwise it wouldn't be the achievement of buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. Just as in mahamudra non-meditation is not about absolute non-activity. However, it seems to me that thogal and its visions is only one possible method of purification, and not the culmination of everything else, therefore other paths don't need it.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Its not only those two systems, it is merely articulated most clearly in those two systems.

Astus wrote:
You mean you know some teachings from other schools too that give similar methods?

Malcolm said:
Also Astus, the four yogas are sūtra mahāmudra. If you do not practice the completion stage, mahāmudra according to the upadeṥas is a slow path, or so it is asserted by the Sakyapas. This is the reason why vase breath is used extensively even in so called sems sde.

Astus wrote:
Yes, the criticism of the White Self-Sufficient Remedy. But from the Dagpo Kagyu perspective, the path of liberation is as valid as the path of transformation, and both are transmitted without putting one above the other. And I'm not trying to prove anyone's right here, there are enough versions of Dharma to satisfy all needs. I'd rather like to understand the reason behind considering the appearance of drops and buddhas - that result in their return to the natural state anyway - is the necessary next step.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
The problem I have always had articulating the unique feature of Vajrayāna view to you sutra guys is precisely summed above: wisdom merged into emptiness is the basis [sthana, gzhi], and this is what accounts for the visions in both Dzochen [klong sde and man ngag sde] as well as Kalacakra.

Astus wrote:
But that's only those two systems. And even in thogal the fourth vision is the total dissolution, like going through creation and completion stages again. Mahamudra is complete with non-meditation, and there is no point in repeating the whole process of mandalas, mantras and buddhas based on the final realisation. So, I don't think I base my understanding on sutra, since that's how it looks like to me in Vajrayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Meaningful in Tibetan
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As far as I know, 'dang ldan' and 'ldan' are synonymous,...

Astus wrote:
It still makes no sense in the text itself. I'd like to understand why the word "meaningful" is used. I assumed that it would be understandable in Tibetan, but if the original contains no other meaning either - and that is what I really want to find out - then there's no difference between the English and the original.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Title: Meaningful in Tibetan
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is "meaningful" in this poem,

"Like the continuous flow of a great river,
Whatever you do is meaningful."
(Thrangu Rinpoche: Songs of Naropa, p. 99; http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.hu/2008/12/reflections-on-naropa-summary-of.html; http://gdamsngagmdzod.tsadra.org/index.php/%E0%BD%95%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%82%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A2%E0%BE%92%E0%BE%B1%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%86%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%A0%E0%BD%B2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%9A%E0%BD%B2%E0%BD%82%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%96%E0%BD%A6%E0%BE%A1%E0%BD%B4%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BC%8B )

Could someone explain this word, what it is in Tibetan, its use, etc.?

འབབ་ལྟར། །ཇི་ལྟར་སྤྱད་ཀྱང་དོན་དང་ལྡན།
'bab ltar / ji ltar spyad kyang don dang ldan

The http://www.thlib.org/reference/dictionaries/tibetan-dictionary/translate.php says "don dang ldan" stands for:

JH-ENG	connected with the meaning
JH-OE	{C}intent on what is beneficial
JH-SKT	{C}artha-yukta

So I presume here "meaningful" (arthayukta - is that only a back translation, or there is such a term in Indian Buddhism?) actually stands for the unlimited compassionate activities of liberating all beings. However, if I just look at the English, the word does not convey such a meaning. Therefore my question.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
So, thögal in tantric mahamudra?

Malcolm said:
Yes, so it seems.

Astus wrote:
Interesting. I have always had this impression that thögal with its channels and visions is a "step back" to tantra from the direct simplicity of trekchö and mahamudra.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Omniscience and the future
Content:
Astus wrote:
Do buddhas know the future? Then lot of classical incidents of Shakyamuni would not have happened. Some discussed here: http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/BuddhaOmniscience.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: 23rd Minor Precept
Content:
Jikan said:
The Brahma Net precepts are used for purposes of ordination in East Asia.

matthewmartin said:
I was sort of surprised to see this, since normally institutions like to keep tight control of membership.

Astus wrote:
It is used for such ordinations only in Japanese schools (and the Taego order?). And I presume no school there would accept self-ordination. At the same time, this feature of the bodhisattva vows allowed everyone to take them freely and thus helped establishing the bodhisattva precepts throughout China and related cultures. However, unlike in Japan, taking only the bodhisattva precepts does not confer any special rights or position.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: What if Buddhism had become the dominant faith of Europe
Content:
Astus wrote:
Religion is not the only force in a society. Highlighting any factor and raising above the others results in serious distortion of one's perspective. History is often viewed as the history of politics, warfare and economics, and that is somewhat biased too, but still more encompassing and logical than putting religion to the front. No Buddhist country I have heard of achieved some sort of golden age where at least the basic five precepts were observed. I'd also be interested to hear of Buddhist scientists and inventors before European influence in Asia.

What if Buddhism had become the dominant faith? Nothing. Christianity had a widespread and influential monastic system, mostly wiped out either by Protestant rulers or by other political changes. Christians have a strong message to "love thy neighbour", but it didn't really stop people from waging wars, pillaging and ransacking towns, suppressing the poor, and persecuting intellectuals and other unwanted people. Buddhism cannot really show any better historical record in transforming societies, plus it mostly lacks the level of social engagement Christianity has always had.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: Faith in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are various forms of faith. There is the general faith in the Three Jewels, common to all Buddhists. There is the very first stage of faith within the ten faiths in the 52 stages system of the bodhisattva path, something one could call Mahayana faith. Such Mahayana faith has various interpretations depending on what source we look at. In Zen it is discussed for instance by Bojo Jinul, who identifies it with faith in buddha-mind, an initial insight into the nature of mind. Then there is great faith among the three essentials of Zen practice as taught first by Gaofeng Yuanmiao, and that is mostly about faith in one's ability to reach enlightenment (i.e. a form of faith in buddha-nature) and faith in the practice itself. In general, Zen teaches the faith that mind is buddha, and that is the highest faith of suchness as taught in Mahayana, where faith is in fact equal to enlightenment.

Dogen writes ( http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/GakuDoYoJinShu.pdf ):

"In general, students of the truth want to be caught by the truth. To be caught by the truth is to lose all trace of enlightenment. Practitioner s of the Buddhist truth should first of all believe in Buddhism. Belief in Buddhism should be the belief that we ourselves originally ex ist inside the truth, without delusion, without wrong images, without disturbances, without anything extra or anything missing, and without mistakes. These are the kind of beliefs we should establish, and this is how we should make the truth clear. Then according to these beliefs, we practice. Th is is our basis for pursuing the truth."

Sources to look at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_A2QS03MP5EC
The Aspiration for Enlightenment through the Perfection of Faith in http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama7/shurangama7_4.asp


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: What is the Largest Buddhist Sect on Earth Today?
Content:
Astus wrote:
For the sake of statistics, it is easier to count monasteries, temples and community buildings. Making a headcount of ordained people is also something quite reliable as long as the government keeps track of them. However, neither monasteries nor ordination define one as belonging to this or that sect, lineage, whatnot.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: Jodo Shinshu and personal morality
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is the problem of 'licensed evil', a known misinterpretation of the teachings of Honen and Shinran. The answer is that those who renounce the world and want to attain birth in the Pure Land don't wilfully commit any evil actions, don't intentionally engage in greed and hatred.

Things you may read:

http://www.adelaideshinbuddhistdojo.com.au/shinranwasan/kw40.htm
https://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.com/2010/06/meaning-of-there-are-no-precepts.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=Xb3BImNUdRAC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=shinran+licensed+evil&source=bl&ots=Gnr5frL6n8&sig=d6VTtaRBahxRJO5uLRbAP4UESYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TtjPUun2CtWysQSj7YCYDA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shinran%20licensed%20evil&f=false


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: What is the Largest Buddhist Sect on Earth Today?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I have to second Master Huifeng's question. The word "sect" needs to be defined, even if loosely. Why?

Vajrayana, Mahayana and Theravada are not sects. That's because they lack the necessary identification in terms of organisation, doctrine and ritual. Buddhism is not like Christianity where most of the churches have a defined organisational structure and a set of beliefs. In fact, there are very few Buddhist groups with an explicit and exclusive teaching, i.e. statements of faith.

Technically speaking, all Buddhists take refuge in the Three Jewels. The monastic community is traditionally defined by the precepts followed, and while there are some minor differences between the three living traditions, they are fairly similar, while the lay community has the same five precepts everywhere. In that sense, there aren't really any sects, we are all followers of the very same Shakyamuni Buddha. (A recommended reading: https://sites.google.com/site/sectsandsectarianism/ )

What defines Pure Land Buddhism? The simple intention to be born in Sukhavati. While the recitation of the name of Amitabha is the most popular form of practice for that, it is not the only one. It doesn't have any unique doctrine, precept, ritual or organisation.

What defines Zen Buddhism? There is nothing that is found in all Zen groups but not outside of Zen. No unique doctrine, precept, ritual or organisation. We could say that Zen has its own lineage system of transmission, but on the one hand there are other Buddhist groups with similar lineages, and on the other there are a number of highly respected Zen teachers without lineage affiliation.

What defines Theravada? That looks somewhat easier, because of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathavatthu, however, if we look at the current state of what is called Theravada, it is something very diverse in their doctrines, practices, rituals and organisations. And since all of them are Theravada, there isn't actually one definitive Theravada school.

What defines Vajrayana? It feels easy to say that all things tantra. However, tantric teachings and practices our found not only in a couple of Tibetan Buddhist groups, but also in Tibetan Bon, in Chinese Buddhism and Taoism, in Japanese Buddhism (mostly Shingon and Tendai, but certain elements exist(ed) in other schools too), and most importantly in various Hindu schools. And if we start limiting the meaning of Vajrayana, we find that there are all sorts of traditions within Buddhism that don't agree with each other on certain points, so like for Theravada, there is no single orthodox school.

So, I think either there aren't really sects in Buddhism, or there are a whole lot of them. Thus some sort of definition is needed to answer the question about the largest Buddhist sect. Or change the question to something else, like "the most popular understanding of enlightenment", "the favourite colour for monastic robes", "the most popular buddha", "the most respected teacher", etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 9th, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Great Doubt Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Great doubt is the determination to get an answer and at the same time not accepting (i.e. doubting) whatever answer one finds in the process.

Some related things:

Robert E. Buswell: http://www.undv.org/vesak2012/iabudoc/04RBuswellFINAL.pdf
Jeff Shore: http://beingwithoutself.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/great_doubt.pdf
http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?board=Hwadu&y_number=33&nnew=2

Also: Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 3; p75-77 n132, n135

This looks like a good source, however, don't know where to get it: https://books.google.hu/books?id=EuYFOAAACAAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
fckw said:
Claiming that the two systems are "basically the same" is therefore only true on a superficial level, but not in terms of various aspects of the practice - at least for the Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug-Systems. Unfortunately, Berzin does not elaborate on the Bons or the Nyingmas.

Astus wrote:
It seems to me all Berzin says is that Dzogchen deals only with rigpa while Anuttarayogatantra's clear light is a more inclusive term. That is, while AYT encompasses the Dzogchen teachings, that's not true the other way around. However, Mahamudra has more than one meaning or one interpretation, and that's not addressed in Berzin's article at all. On the other hand, previously there were several quotes given right from the beginning of this thread how the view of Dzogchen and Mahamudra can be the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
fckw said:
In (the highest stages of) Mahamudra, mind moments are allowed to arise from the ground, then instantaneously (in the very moment of arising) self liberate and dissolve back into the ground.
In Dzogchen, mind moments arise as the expressive aspect of the ground, i.e. not different from it. Therefore there is no need for self-liberation at all.
If this is true (and please correct me if I am mistaken), then there would actually be a very subtle difference in practice between the two systems, namely in terms of the view taken in regard to arising mind moments.

Astus wrote:
From the http://www.rinpoche.com/dchng.html:
Whatever arises, is the fresh nature of thought.
and
The essence of thought is dharmakaya, it is taught.

So, there is no substantial difference between appearances and the nature of mind, both are dharmakaya. It is quite an important part in Mahamudra vipasyana meditation to clarify this for oneself.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 2nd, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Meditation from Shurangama Sutra Volume 5
Content:
Will said:
Says Master Hua: "there was no attachment. At that time it was "producing the mind that does not dwell anywhere." Further, he remarks that the state is "inexpressibly blissful".

A non-attached & blissful state is hardly 'total annihilation', nor is it an 'extreme view' but a view central to the path.

Astus wrote:
What is such a state where there is no hearing (or any other of the six consciousnesses) if not the cessation of all phenomena? And if what is meant is rather not being attached to phenomena, it is not the cessation or vanishing of anything but only attachment itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 5:45 PM
Title: Re: Meditation from Shurangama Sutra Volume 5
Content:
Astus wrote:
Even the perception of awareness vanished, was emptied out. When the emptiness of awareness reached an ultimate perfection, emptiness and what was being emptied then also ceased to be. ... Then the mind capable of creating vanished, as did the states that were made empty, so that then there wasn't even any emptiness!

I mean that for instance the above quote sounds like total annihilation. It equates emptiness with ceasing, with non-existence. As I see it, that is not the view of the middle way, it is an extreme view.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Meditation from Shurangama Sutra Volume 5
Content:
Astus wrote:
This sounds so much like a state of not simply being deaf but even dead mindless.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Which Sutras make the Best Reading?
Content:
ylee111 said:
Which ones read more like epic novels rather than lectures?  I am not necessarily looking for Game of Thrones but...

Astus wrote:
That Avatamsaka (Flower Ornament) Sutra is epic. And it's very popular.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 6:13 PM
Title: Re: Cross Buddhist Upaya
Content:
kindergarden said:
First, let us look at the word "enlightenment." Is it something one finds in oneself or discovers outside and brings it in? In my tradition (Rinzai Zen), as I understand it, one rediscovers it within. Is it gradual or sudden or a combination?

Shall we start? What do you know of upaya, Astus? As far as I know, Buddha only mentioned speech but said there are 84000.

Astus wrote:
In Japanese Rinzai Zen, although they distinguish five levels of koan practice, it is not necessarily a clearly established path (Zen Sand, p 29). I think that Zen is not a good approach for devising methods, paths and stages of enlightenment, as it is rather against/without such schemes. Other Buddhist schools fit the requirements better for extensive analysis of the path to enlightenment, complete with methods, stages and definitions. Major works like the Mahaprajnaparamita-upadesha and the Yogacarabhumi-shastra in East Asia cover that, however, because of lack of complete English translations, one better looks at Tibetan Mahayana where we already have complete works in English (from Tsongkhapa, Mipham, Jamgon Kongtrul, et al).

I don't know if such a list of skilful means exists. If I think of teachings like the Vimalakirti and the Upayakausalya Sutra, they show how bodhisattvas work in a way to meet the needs of the individual. That's what skilful means is about, that's what the knowledge of aspects/characteristics (sarvakarajnata/道種智), also called discriminatory wisdom, is about. It is the same thing that Linji says (Sasaki, p 13) about meeting various people and teaching them accordingly. But while most of the Buddhist schools have an established structure for training (stages and methods), Zen rather leaves it to the individual teacher to act freely (although in practice there are traditional sets of methods, but no sophisticated philosophy).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Cross Buddhist Upaya
Content:
Astus wrote:
Skilful means are means of liberation. Could you demonstrate how all you listed are methods to bring enlightenment?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
The stories don't  "give any useful information on how one could accomplish the same" but doesn't a person learn that when they get off the internet and go to a real life zen center or temple and meet with actual monks and teachers, etc?

Astus wrote:
Yes, experience in various communities is important. It is good to visit as many as one can, to see that Zen is not uniform. And then one can also see, that this is a human endeavour where anyone willing can take part.

seeker242 said:
The idea that one should "find an enlightened master", is that really an invention of "western zen"?

Astus wrote:
Zen was (and mostly still is) practised within a monastic environment, where one automatically has elders who are one's teachers. The idea that one should look for a "transmitted Zen teacher" was promoted in the Song era to strengthen the Zen school against others. Eventually that resulted in the complete takeover of Chinese monastic leadership, so abbots in China are almost always members of a Zen lineage, just as it is a requirement in Japan that all Zen monasteries are lead by a Zen teacher (thus the transmission became mostly hereditary after the Meiji era). And that's all quite different from the Western perception of the enlightened Zen master.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Huifeng said:
The quote you give in Chinese 晚參 means exactly "evening meditation session".  It does not mean "evening gathering".

Astus wrote:
Yes, I see what you mean. But perhaps canchan is not that old a term to mean practice here, or the evening rituals were not the same as now. I can only rely on some other sources to clarify this, but I of course acknowledge that you may know better.

Footnote in Sasaki's version (p 150) says, Evening gathering 晚參. We have no definite knowledge of what this term referred to during Tang times, but in the Song it was an evening meeting of the assembly held in the master’s quarters 方 丈 (see page 131, above). It was informal in procedure, in contrast to the formal service held in the morning in the main hall, when the master took the high seat.

And if I understand it correctly, the http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/61523/%E6%99%9A%E5%8F%83 also gives various meanings here, not only the current system of morning and evening sessions of meditation and recitation.

Burton translates it as "evening lecture" (p 21), Shimano "evening gathering" (p 12), Schloegl "evening question period".


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
But as Westerners encountered that armed with their own presuppositions and conditioning - and without a lot of key background information to clarify the situation, as you point out - I can agree that certainly confusion has sometimes resulted.

Astus wrote:
I think changing to a fully lay environment that lacks all knowledge of Buddhist tradition is a big change. Although lay practitioners have always participated in Zen to some extent - to the level that Dahui recommended kanhua practice only to lay people - but the teachings and methods were normally meant for ordained monastics.

Meido said:
Some folks who complain that in their experience Zen lacks such engagement may have just run into the latter approach without knowing it.

Astus wrote:
It's good that one can always choose whatever teacher or community one likes, such are the benefits of religious freedom. Although if I look around among the programmes offered by various Zen groups, it's not easy to find one that conducts lectures on sutras and treatises.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
As for the recorded spoken teachings of these masters having greater historicity or being less subject to canonical revision, I couldn't say if that's the case.

Astus wrote:
"As I have shown in a previous publication, none of the encounter dialogue stories or exchanges, neither those that feature Baizhang nor any other Chan monk, can be traced back to the Tang period. From what we know, the encounter dialogue format was not even known during the Tang dynasty."
(Mario Poceski: Monastic Innovator, Iconoclast, and Teacher of Doctrine - The Varied Images of Chan Master Baizhang, in Zen Masters, p 15)

"The Extensive Record is an especially valuable source of information about Baizhang’s teachings, and it is also among the most valuable resources for the study of Chan doctrine from the Tang period."
(p 21)

"The story of "Ye yazi" or "Wild Ducks," for example, according to the early record in Wuxie heshang, in volume 15 of Zutang ji, originally was attributed to Baizhang Weizheng, but in later records, such as juan 3 of Wudeng huiyuan, juan 1 of Guzun su yulu, and juan 6 no 53 of Biyan lu, its attribution was changed, and it became the most important enlightenment dialogue written by Baizhang Huaihai."
(Zhaoguang Ge: History, Ideology, and General Ideological History - A Case Study of Chan Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty, in New Perspectives on the Research of Chinese Culture, p 65)

As for Baizhang's teachings in his Extensive Record, he was less a subitist than Mazu or Huangbo, as he used a three stages system of progressive elimination of attachment, nevertheless, it ended in buddhahood that could be accomplished in this life.

Regarding the relevance to the Western Myth, because Zen introduced itself primarily through the stories rather than the teachings, it gives the impression of unintelligible mysticism realised suddenly, as in both the wild ducks and the deafening shout story Baizhang attains enlightenment, but the stories do not give any useful information on how one could accomplish the same, besides the idea that one needs to find an enlightened master. And that brings us to the elevated status of the Zen teacher within the Western idea of Zen.

Meido said:
I think it safe to assume that since he participated in the monastic activities he did what others were doing, for example the several times he is mentioned participating in manual work.

Astus wrote:
My reply was for that particular situation when Linji gave that teaching. The record says, "At the evening gathering the master addressed the assembly" (師晚參示衆), the usual situation of shangtang, ascending the hall, i.e. giving a lecture. So, unlike what seeler242 said, the teaching was not given during a meditation session.

Meido said:
At the end of the day I'm rather fond of the approach which flexibly allows for any possibility, while having concrete methods matching the reality of most students' capacities.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that is the reality of a viable Buddhist community. And there is a palpable difference between the literary works of Zen and the daily activities of a Zen monastery. But at the same time, literary works can have a strong influence of what activities are considered Zen and what sort of Zen is expected by people. I think it is still the general scenario that those disillusioned by both the traditional religious and New Age arena, and by materialist consumerism, turn to Buddhism as a third alternative. In my opinion, while the "meditation only" approach can work to a certain extent, it fails to generate a stronger connection to the Dharma within a larger community, making Buddhism vulnerable to changes in social trends. For example, the lack of younger generation in Zen communities, as perceived by some ( http://nozeninthewest.wordpress.com/forum-young-people-in-dharma/ ).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Soto Zen Gradual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8591/2498 (PDF).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
Explain more on no-thought.

Astus wrote:
From Thich Thanh Tu's Keys to Buddhism (p 52):

Also, if we look directly at the false thoughts, they will disperse like clouds or smoke. This is “directly pointing at the mind,” not relying on any means. If we all practiced in this manner, no one would be unwise enough to run after their thoughts, trying to destroy illusions. We only need to know that thoughts are false and not follow them. This is the essence of Bodhidharma’s pacification of mind.

From Hanshan Deqing's http://chancenter.org/cmc/2011/10/13/essentials-of-practice-and-enlightenment-for-beginners/:

What is commonly known as practice means simply to accord with [whatever state] of mind youíre in so as to purify and relinquish the deluded thoughts and traces of your habit tendencies. Exerting your efforts here is called practice. If within a single moment deluded thinking suddenly ceases, [you will] thoroughly perceive your own mind and realize that it is vast and open, bright and luminous, intrinsically perfect and complete. This state, being originally pure, devoid of a single thing, is called enlightenment. Apart from this mind, there is no such thing as cultivation or enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
For sudden-gradual, if one does not practice chanting, recitation, or others, and since chanting or recitation is just an activity, is there an approach that can encompass all activities?

Astus wrote:
In the "sudden-gradual" system one does practise all sorts of things. At the same time, it is possible to reduce everything to a single practice, as long as it is with an enlightened perspective. In Zen that is normally the practice of no-thought, and its derived methods of shikantaza and huatou.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Curious. What do you think of Linji himself sitting zazen, but at the same time, saying the below?

Astus wrote:
It is a repudiation of the gradualist view. But what makes you think he was sitting in zazen? No such thing is mentioned anywhere.

seeker242 said:
what happens to bodhicitta when one would believe "There is really nothing there that is real to save beings from to begin with"

Astus wrote:
From the path of seeing (i.e. the first bhumi; the 41st stage of enlightenment) bodhicitta is based on the realisation of emptiness. That's what the Diamond Sutra, and the prajnaparamita scriptures in general, talk about. It is the combined practice of wisdom and compassion. And it still has the intention to save all beings, while knowing that "beings" is only a conventional term. However, ultimate truth is not a negation of conventional truth, but the affirmation that conventional is in fact conventional and nothing more.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
Episodes have been pointed out that do not support such a conclusion, for example the story of Linj's own training, Baizhang's experiences with Mazu, Bodhidharma's pronouncements regarding flesh/skin/bone/marrow (I recognize that appears late) and so on.  But again, I have not seen the sudden-sudden model denied anywhere in Zen as a possibility at least.

Astus wrote:
Linji trained himself in general Mahayana before meeting Huangbo, but after meeting Dayu there is no further studying mentioned. Baizhang's record is sketchy, and it doesn't discuss any training, only some stories with Mazu. And at best we rather look at their teachings about what they said about enlightenment and not stories that are even less reliable, if we are considering historicity and not only the developed canonical view.

Meido said:
In terms of books I was thinking more of popular works in the west like Three Pillars of Zen, which presents kensho in a light that has to my mind caused some obstacles for people.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that is more appropriate. Alan Watts and DT Suzuki are also major players here.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
Circling back to western myths of Zen, I would say what some popular Zen books have failed to stress is that kensho itself is not considered uncommonly difficult.  And that the meat of Zen lies after.

Astus wrote:
That is likely because of the various texts not organised. In the teachings of Bodhidharma, Mazu, Dazhu Huihai, Linji and other Tang era teachers, seeing nature is buddhahood.

"Awakening is to awake to one's original nature. Once awakened, one is awakened forever, there being no more ignorance."
(Mazu in Sun Face Buddha, p 67-68)

Initial awakening followed up by gradual practice occurs first in Zongmi's teachings (published in English in 2009), and it's prominent in Jinul's works (published in English in 1983), however, they are not among the more popular works read by people interested in Zen, unlike the Teachings of Huangbo (translated to English in 1958) and various excerpts and collections. Also, I think there are still only partial translations of the works of Hakuin. And without good resources for the practices coming after kensho, only those who are in an actual Rinzai programme can know about it. Soto Zen is somewhat different in this regard, as it doesn't really have this concept of "sudden-gradual".


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
The original argument is not removed when both yes and no are true, at the same time. When reason and no reason are both true at the same time. "Just chanting" is "just chanting" because it comes from the no perspective. Do you think a soto practitioner sits shikantaza for the purpose of attaining enlightenment or attaining anything at all?

Astus wrote:
Yes is true for there is a purpose for engaging in a form of practice. No is true when doing the practice itself and there is no need to keep in mind the intention behind it. If one is hungry one just goes and eats something. The intention is not to feel hungry. The reason for eating is satisfying the hunger. But while eating there is no need to think again and again that one is hungry. However, just because one does not keep thinking about hunger while eating, doesn't mean there is no reason for eating.

As for why various people feel the need to sit in meditation can be different for every individual. With a worldly mind it is for temporary benefits, like health and removing stress. With a sravaka mind it is for attaining liberation from samsara. With a bodhisattva mind it is for becoming a buddha and liberating all beings. There is no higher intention than bodhicitta.

seeker242 said:
What else is there to do?

Astus wrote:
Do you mean one engages in Buddhist practices because there's nothing else to do? Like, one could as well play football or read a novel, depending on the weather.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
They would just be considered insufficient for completely dissolving accumulated habit-energy, and also crucially for maturing the power and means to skillfully assist others.

Astus wrote:
Just as Jinul explains,

As for “gradual cultivation,” although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no different from that of the buddhas, the beginningless proclivities of habit (vāsanā) are extremely difficult to remove suddenly. Therefore he must continue to cultivate while relying on this awakening so that this efficacy of gradual suffusion is perfected; he constantly nurtures the embryo of sanctity, and after a long, long time he becomes a sage. Hence it is called gradual cultivation.
(Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 2, p 216-217)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Precisely why the answer to your question is both yes and no. For example does a soto practitioner when they sit down to do shikantaza, are they trying to "get elightment"? Well, yes and no.

Astus wrote:
The starting point for the discussion about why one should do chanting, prostrations, sitting, etc. began with me questioning the validity of the argument that there is no reason at all, and "just chanting", etc. is all there is. If you agree that yes, there is first an intention with a particular goal in mind, then the original argument for "just chanting" is removed as non-existent. Consequently the question still stands. Why do any kind of practice if not for the sake of accumulating wisdom and merit, and ultimately for attaining enlightenment and liberating beings, that is, the bodhisattva motivation of the gradual path?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
basically seeking for instructional.

Astus wrote:
Could you explain that?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Yes and no. When I sit down to actually do chanting, I'm not trying to practice making merit. ...There is just "om baara tobiya hum" and that's it. That's what I mean.

Astus wrote:
If I want to go from one place to another I don't need to keep in mind the other place I'm going to while travelling. But to start the journey I need to know where I am going to. Similarly, to sit down and chant you need to have the intention to do it, and behind that intention there is a reason. And that reason is why one does this or that, it's not simply "just chanting", etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Saying one should do this or that kind of practice, is not the same as actually doing it. You don't need to say anything to actually do it. You don't need to have this kind of thought or that kind of thought, to actually do it.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean there is such a thing as action without intention?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
What is meant by genuine sudden path? Can you explain further? Many ancient masters have spoken, students realized their mind is Buddha. But they were not fully enlightened. Are chanting and other practices not good for "activating correct views?"

Astus wrote:
There is "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice" and "sudden enlightenment, sudden practice" within Zen. The first one was originally emphasised by Guifeng Zongmi primarily against the emerging Hongzhou school (disciples of Mazu Daoyi) and to some extent the Baotang school. The latter one is the argument of Heze Shenhui against the so called Northern School, and that concept spread to the later generations (everyone except the Northern School itself).

The "sudden-gradual" system is the reintroduction of the bodhisattva stages into the new frame of "sudden enlightenment" (i.e. the hallmark idea of the "Southern School"), while the "sudden-sudden" is upholding the "genuine sudden path" as done by the Hongzhou school. The "sudden-gradual" form developed a more systematic approach, while the "sudden-sudden" created most of the Zen dialogue collections. Their eventual fusion is most apparent in the teachings of Bojo Jinul.

Seeing nature means (originally meant) buddhahood. That is because only buddhas can see buddha-nature (see e.g. Nirvana Sutra, Lotus Sutra). The way kensho (seeing nature) is interpreted in the "sudden-gradual" system and post-Hakuin Rinzai is another matter, where they consider it only an initial fleeting experience, a momentary insight. So, seeing nature in the Platform Sutra and the Hongzhou school stands for full enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
It is of gradual path but to non-gradual path, meditation, recitation, and chanting are non-gradual. Why is it necessary and not necessary to do meditation, recitation, and chanting? If it is not necessary, then why and what is there to do? If it is necessary, then why?

Astus wrote:
On a gradual path, various practices can have their own role and relevance. It is summed up in the six paramitas, where prajnaparamita is for the accumulation of wisdom, and the other five are for the accumulation of merit. Yongming Yanshou discussed this in his Treatise on the Common End of Myriad Good Deeds, that incorporates various practices into a "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice" system (see Albert Welter's dissertation: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2714&context=opendissertations ).

On a genuinely sudden path, it is not really a path at all. As quoted previously, there are no practices to do, as there is nowhere to develop. It is buddhahood itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
So then what do you think is meant by "the practice of no practice"? Does that just mean you sit on the couch all day and just watch TV and don't do anything?

Astus wrote:
It means buddhahood. There is in fact an old term: aśaikṣa (Pali: asekha), it means non-training, and it is a term for arhats and buddhas who have completed the path. Of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C5%ABmi_%28Buddhism%29#Five_Paths it is the path of no more training (aśaikṣa-mārga).

seeker242 said:
I disagree as it's possible to not practice chanting, while practicing chanting.

Astus wrote:
That is the bodhisattva training in the paramitas, and that is for accumulating merit.

seeker242 said:
Which means it's possible for it to be "no thought" while at the same time, holding thoughts in mind.

Astus wrote:
I said that the meaning of no thought is not that one should keep a specific thought in mind for that. I didn't say there are no thoughts at all, or that one cannot have thoughts. But no thought is not to have this or that thought, and it is open to all thoughts. Saying that one should do this or that kind of practice for no practice is equal to saying that one should have this or that kind of thought for no thought.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
And likewise the teaching of " no practice" can not be used to invalidate any practice just like the teaching of "no thought" can not be used to invalidate thoughts.  Because "no thought" does not actually mean no thought but no thought within thought. The same can be said about "practice". As for sudden vs gradual distinction, I prefer the platform sutra explanation of that in there really is no such distinction to begin with. I believe it says that the only difference is capacity of different individuals.

Astus wrote:
The Platform Sutra says (ch 4):

“Good friends, there are also those who teach meditation [in terms of ] viewing the mind, contemplating tranquility, motionlessness, and nonactivation. You are supposed to make an effort on the basis of these. These deluded people do not understand, and in their grasping become mixed up like all of you here. You should understand that such superficial teachings are greatly mistaken!”
The master addressed the assembly, “Good friends, the correct teaching is fundamentally without either sudden or gradual—it is human nature that is either clever or dull. Deluded people cultivate gradually, while enlightened people suddenly conform [to the truth]. If you recognize your own fundamental mind and see your own fundamental nature, there will be no such distinctions! Thus it is that sudden and gradual are posited as provisional names.

That is, any sort of practice - as listed - is a mistake. Only deluded people cultivate gradually. If one sees one's true nature - sudden enlightenment - then there is no point any more to talk of either sudden or gradual path. As it says in chapter 2:

There are no sudden and gradual in the Dharma,
It is delusion and enlightenment that are slow or fast.
It is only this teaching of seeing the nature
Which stupid people cannot comprehend.

And,

Those with deluded minds appear to be cultivating and seeking buddhahood, but they are unenlightened to their self-natures. Hence are they of small capacities. If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature.

And in chapter 8:

The morality, meditation, and wisdom of your master is for exhorting those of small capacities to wisdom, but my morality, meditation, and wisdom is for exhorting those of great capacities to wisdom. If you are enlightened to the self-nature, you need not posit bodhi and nirvana, nor do you have to posit emancipated perceptual understanding.

The self-nature becomes enlightened itself, sudden enlightenment and sudden cultivation. There is no gradual progression. Therefore, one does not posit all the dharmas. The dharmas are quiescent—how could there be a progression?

So, yes, there are differences in capacity. Those with little affinity for the sudden teaching cannot understand it, and they need to follow the gradual path of Mahayana. Huangbo says the same thing,

"The practice of the six paramitas and various other disciplines is known as the gradual method of becoming a Buddha.  This gradual method, however, is a secondary idea, and it does not represent the complete path to Perfect Awakening."

And,

"The attainment of one who has practiced the myriad Dharma doors throughout three kalpas, having passed through the many Bodhisattva stages, and the attainment of one who has suddenly awakened to the One Mind are equal.  Both of them have just attained their own Original Buddha.  The former type of disciple, the gradual attainer, upon arriving at his Original Buddha, looks back on his three kalpas of past practice as if he were looking at himself acting totally without principle in a dream."

And as you say, there isn't really any sudden and gradual path, since both ends in buddhahood. Huineng taught for those of the best capacity, to directly see the nature of mind, and so did Huangbo and others, but not everyone. But the distinction is there, that doing such practices as sitting meditation, recitation, chanting, etc. as practices are of the gradual path. The sudden path would not be sudden if there were methods to follow. It wouldn't be "no practice" if there were practices to use. Just as it wouldn't be "no thought" if there were thoughts to keep in mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
Again, I believe that an awareness of this is growing in those quarters where it did not previously exist.

Astus wrote:
Thank you for your answers. I'm happy to hear that you see that as a general trend.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
If there was a significant reason for doing chanting in particular, it would not be the practice of no practice. So you are criticizing the practice of no practice? I thought that is what you were advocating? I don't understand! Do you think the practice of no practice is appropriate or not appropriate?

Astus wrote:
The teaching of "no practice" cannot be used to validate any sort of practice. If we put this into the Mahayana frame of the six paramitas, then it could be argued that while with prajnaparamita the view of emptiness is clear (no practice, no practitioner), the other five paramitas - while viewed with prajnaparamita - are to accumulate merit and develop qualities. The Zen teaching of sudden enlightenment may or may not agree with this, depending on how it is interpreted. If sudden enlightenment is truly sudden, then there is no need to develop wisdom and accumulate merit, because the buddha-nature is in and of itself perfect. But when it is taught as "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice", there is a reason for practising, as it agrees with the bodhisattva path of common Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Common sense is not abandoned simply by chanting a sutra. Chanting is not unethical, nor is doing prostrations.

Astus wrote:
I'm not talking about chanting or doing prostrations. I'm criticising the argument, the reason you gave for doing those practices. That is, that there is no reason whatsoever and one should just do it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: "All cognitions broght about by words are ultimately fal
Content:
Bhadantacariya said:
I have a hard time buying this since it seems to imply that the cognitions that his words are bringing about in me are ultimately false, including the cognition formed by the words in the title of this thread.

Astus wrote:
The problem is raised in Nagarjuna's http://leonlbreaux.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/refutation-of-objections.pdf.

The question:

If no phenomena anywhere possess inherent existence,
your statement, without inherent existence, cannot discard inherent existence.
But if your statement possesses inherent existence,
you refute your initial position. Explain your lapse in logic.

His answer:

No thesis can address all causes and conditions, separately or apart.
This proves the lack of inherent existence in phenomena and, consequently, emptiness.
Emptiness occurs through the dependent nature of phenomena.
Dependent-natured phenomena lack inherent existence.
Similarly, a conjured phantom can deny a phantom its own magic conjures.
I make no claims of inherent existence, so you have not refuted an assertion.
No inconsistency occurs, so I need explain no grounds.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
The point in doing them is that there is no point in not doing them.

Astus wrote:
In that case one should do something enjoyable or socially beneficial, and then there is some meaning in doing them. The same nihilist (no point, no meaning) reasoning can be used practically for any sort of abuse and evil action too. It's not correct discernment and clarity but blank mind and blind faith.

seeker242 said:
"Mind sitting" precisely is the practice of no practice. So is bowing, so is chanting, so is sitting, so is cleaning the bathroom.

Astus wrote:
Same as above. This is denying all sense.

seeker242 said:
Following your own likes and dislikes is not zen.

Astus wrote:
This is an easily misinterpreted concept. It does not negate moral/ethical discernment, nor "common sense".


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 6:43 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
What do you consider a well-rounded approach to Buddhist teaching? Particularly since we're talking about Japanese Zen, which has a large stream of self-view as Ekayana based on recognition of one's nature and transcending divisions of the Three Vehicles.

Astus wrote:
What I'm looking for/into is how Zen is presented in the West currently. Saying that Zen is all about meditation and there are no doctrines attached to it is one possible way. There are other options, like as you say, an Ekayana teaching beyond the three vehicles. I'm not saying this or that is good or wrong, but I believe that the definition has short- and long-term consequences. One example is http://www.zenbuddhisttemple.org/ that was previously the Zen Lotus Society but changed name for Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom, and they have a mission that includes elements of social engagement and Mahayana. Its difference from the http://zenpeacemakers.org is that the BSCW is explicitly Buddhist, while the ZPO is more secular.

Meido said:
So you get a lot of talk meant to stress welcome, accessibility and non-sectarianism.

Astus wrote:
Saying that a group is welcoming to everyone or that Islam and Buddhism can go together are two different things as I see it. There are some Christian priests who are also Zen teachers, so according to that view, Zen is not really bound by any religion. That's why I brought that part of Daibosatsu's introductory text. It continues that quoted part with this, "With this flexible and accommodating attitude toward the various cultures and beliefs it encountered, Buddhism was embraced throughout Asia. In China, it merged with Taoism and evolved into Ch'an, the Chinese word for meditation, which became "Zen" in Japan." So, this might be just an advertisement to invite everyone - although in that case it is questionable why they state something they don't actually believe in - or it is what they think. Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on the Zen Studies Society, and I'm not saying this is heretical or anything like that. What I'm interested in is to see how various groups present/define Zen, thus creating the "Western myth of Zen".

Meido said:
In any case, from within the Zen view of itself I see no problem with saying that anyone, regardless of beliefs and self-identification, could experience awakening if they encounter a realized teacher.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean your interpretation of Zen is that it is above cultures and beliefs? If I were a devout Evangelical Christian I could still attain enlightenment without leaving behind my faith in the Saviour? Like, I could reach black belt level in some martial art regardless of my religion?

Meido said:
What's wrong with them benefiting in this way according to their capacity?

Astus wrote:
It's not wrong. It can be very beneficial, I'm not questioning that at all. Although I think that wisdom is an integral part of Zen, using meditation alone is not a bad thing at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Meido,

Could you give some examples of those Zen communities where they give a well rounded Buddhist teaching? Where they view Zen as a form of Mahayana Buddhism, complete with a large written canon, religious beliefs and traditions. I'm just curious about who you think of as exemplary transmitters of the Buddhadharma.

From my end, as I don't even live in America, I can see only what they put online, publish in writings and maybe things I hear from others. As an example, on the Zen Studies Society (Daibosatsu Zendo) site http://www.daibosatsu.org/onzen.html they say,

""Buddha" simply means "awakened one." His great teaching was that we can all awaken; that fundamentally, we are all buddhas— Jewish buddhas, Christian buddhas, Hindu buddhas, Islamic buddhas, Ashanti buddhas, Haudenasaunee buddhas, secular buddhas."

Or here's one description from the http://stillmindzendo.org/about/,

"Still Mind Zendo emphasizes the practice of zazen (sitting meditation) above all else, recognizing it as a way for people to deepen their insight and realization of their essential self, which is nothing other than the realization of their lives. And because essential self, or essential nature, is not bound by the limitations of any religion or gender or path in life — not bound, in fact, by anything — we welcome people from all walks of life and from all religious or non-religious backgrounds to sit with us, practicing the development of a still mind as the necessary path to awakening.

Our singular commitment to zazen practice makes our sangha (community) a simple one. Apart from upholding the tradition of the basic Zen chants, we hold no services or other rituals, and we do not wear robes. We are, however, deeply committed to the teachings of the ancestors; to the discipline of the Way; to the attention to posture and detail; to the practice of being in the moment; and to the extension of that practice into every facet of our lives."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
They are considered meditation at a real zen temple.

Astus wrote:
Isn't that the other extreme, saying that a real Zen temple must take everything (or certain things) as meditation? As above I mentioned, there is that view, when you "just do it" or when "you are aware doing it" means meditation. But then, what's the difference between "just bowing" and "just chanting", and "just listening to music" and "just swimming in a lake"? If there is no difference, then no point in doing those things instead of others. If there is a difference, then it is something else than "just doing it".

For instance, recitation is good for memorising a text. That's what it was/is used for. And if you memorise a text you can always go back to it, reflect on it, etc. And there are reciting mantras for magical effects and reciting the name of buddhas as a form of worship or contemplation. Saying that recitation is for "just reciting" makes it meaningless, as I said above. Same goes for other practices.

seeker242 said:
To someone who is not trapped by "cultural trappings", cultural trappings don't even exist. There is no such thing.

Astus wrote:
Cultural trappings is a sort of argument to reduce Zen (Buddhism) to a set of chosen methods and teachings. It doesn't mean that they are actually related to the source culture (Japanese, Chinese, Indian, etc.) or not. So, calling it "cultural" is based on the idea that there is a difference between the Dharma and the culture, a very modern idea actually (that is, the idea of cultural relativism and cultural identity).

seeker242 said:
The purpose of such activity is to practice "mind sitting". Huineng did not teach that "only sitting on the floor with your legs crossed" is meditation.

Astus wrote:
If there is an activity to be done, it is not "mind sitting". Chapter five of the Platform Sutra about seated meditation says clearly,

"In this teaching, there is no impediment and no hindrance. Externally, for the mind to refrain from activating thoughts with regard to all the good and bad realms is called ‘seated’ (zuo). Internally, to see the motionlessness of the self-nature is called ‘meditation’ (chan)."

That is, zazen (zuochan, seated meditation) is not a technique or practice, it is not an activity or teaching to follow. "Mind sitting" is not being hung up on sensory and mental phenomena based on the wisdom of emptiness. As the sutra says in the previous chapter,

"There is in the self-nature fundamentally not a single dharma that can be perceived. To think that there were any would be a false explanation, a disaster, a false view of enervating defilements. Therefore, this teaching takes nonthought as its central doctrine."

The Platform Sutra does not recommend or teach any other practice than "no practice". This is also true of Zen in general. Look at the followings.

If you don't see your nature, invoking buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings-but no buddha.
(Bloodstream Sermon, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 11)

In the authentic transmission of [our] religion, it is said that this Buddha-Dharma, which has been authentically and directly transmitted one-to-one, is supreme among the supreme. After the initial meeting with a [good] counselor we never again need to burn incense, to do prostrations, to recite Buddha’s name, to practice confession, or to read sutras. Just sit and get the state that is free of body and mind.
(Bendowa, Shobogenzo, vol 1, p 5, tr. Nishijima-Cross)

Again [Master Tendō] said, “Practicing [za]zen is the dropping off of body and mind. We need not burn incense, do prostrations, recite the Buddha’s name, confess, or read sutras. When we are just sitting, we have attainment from the beginning.”
(Gyoji, SBGZ, vol 2, p 209)

One day the Councilor Wang visited the master. When he met the master in front of the Monks’ Hall, he asked, “Do the monks of this monastery read the sutras?”
“No, they don’t read sutras,” said the master.
“Then do they learn meditation?” asked the councilor.
“No, they don’t learn meditation,” answered the master.
“If they neither read sutras nor learn meditation, what in the world are they doing?” asked the councilor.
“All I do is make them become buddhas and patriarchs,” said the master.
The councilor said, “‘Though gold dust is valuable, in the eyes it causes cataracts.’”
“I always used to think you were just a common fellow,” said the master.
(Record of Linji, p 38, tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Meido said:
But if you mean to describe what is actually happening in Western Zen practice, I think the picture is much more varied and nuanced...certainly more so than one might think surveying the online Zen world.

Astus wrote:
I don't have any specific group or organisation in mind. And even if I did I would raise the subject only on the theoretical level because I don't think there's much good in a series of criticisms on an online forum. What I quoted in the OP here is to bring attention to the origin myth and definition of Zen as it is used many times, and that it has an impact on how Zen is perceived and practised. As you say, there are many groups and in those groups there are all sorts of people, so it'd take a thorough investigation to start a discussion on that, and that's not something I have the capacity to do, plus I think it's up to each organisation and individual members to decide what and how they want to do. So I'm writing about the "Western Myth of Zen" on the level of principle and theory and not about any actual institution, teacher or person. That kind of discussion is for those who are in close contact with them.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
ReasonAndRhyme said:
I'm not sure which part of your post is a quote and which part is you speaking, but concerning the above statement: this is not neccessarily so.

Astus wrote:
Text not in bold are my comments.

There are various definitions. My point is that there is a tendency that Zen (and Buddhism in general) is primarily/only about meditative practice. That's what Zen people (and Buddhists) do. If you are a Zen follower you are necessarily a Zen practitioner, and practitioner means meditating. The programs of a Zen community consists mainly of meditation practice. Intensive practice is a retreat with lots of meditation. There is no Sunday school, nothing like a catechism, nothing particular to accept as true or a specific code of conduct to follow - or in Buddhist terms, no correct view and no correct ethics. Although there are talks about buddha-nature, emptiness, the bodhisattva precepts, but they are not really more important than ritual eating and drinking. Actually, even meditation is not a well developed subject, there are mostly generalisations and simple instructions.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Indeed, largely, though not entirely, based on Sung dynasty Neo-confucian aesthetics as interpreted by the Japanese.

Astus wrote:
There was a topic: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=4385.

My view is that seeing and/or presenting Zen as a style is losing what actual teachings were transmitted. But when it becomes a taboo to even consider that Zen has a doctrinal position, it is easy to reduce it to superficial techniques and artistic forms. And that's what this "Western Myth" does.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
Personally, I would not go so far as to say that as chanting, prostrations, gardening, tea ceremony, Oryoki, etc, etc is all itself, meditation.

Astus wrote:
They are not considered meditation, unless the argument is that "everything is meditation as long as you are aware of what you do", i.e. meditation is "being in the present". They are elements carried on in various communities without much consideration. But of course there is no particular reason as for why wear robes mimicking monks, or why eat like they do (did) in Japan, or why a Zen garden is better than an English garden. However, if those "cultural trappings" were removed completely, Zen would look no different from the Insight Meditation Society or simple meditation groups outside the Buddhist frame. Thus Zen is defined not by what is actually taught but by its outward appearance. Zen is therefore a style.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
matthewmartin said:
I would say that single practice Buddhism is a Japanese idea, post Chan, but pre-Brad.

Astus wrote:
There is no Buddhist school that I know of where they only have one kind of practice.

It is true that Honen emphasised the recitation of the name as the single practice that is sufficient for attaining birth in the Pure Land, but that is not the only practice he taught but also the miscellaneous practices of the Pure Land Path (zogyo) and the four auxiliary acts (jogo).

Dogen was definitely not the kind of "zazen only" teacher that some like to interpret him. Yes, zazen is a central method, but as it is apparent in his writings, he embraced and transmitted lot more than that. Most of his works in the Shobogenzo and his speeches in the Eihei Koroku are not about zazen. I just counted it, and the word zazen occurs in the 75-fascicle SBGZ only in eleven writings (10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 43, 47, 50, 63, 69), and in three more (Bendowa, Butsudo/Doshin, Juundo Shiki) if you add 20 other works. That means 14.6% or 14.7% of the Shobogenzo works contain the word zazen, and even less talk about it to some extent. Plus, zazen has a wider meaning than just sitting in meditation.

And although I don't know much about Nichiren's teachings, I know that they do more than just repeating the Odaimoku endlessly.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
tomamundsen said:
To be clear, you are disagreeing with both the words in bold and not in bold, correct?

Astus wrote:
Yes. I meant to highlight the nature of the myth created for Zen (and Buddhism).


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Title: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen is a specific form of Buddhism that developed at the beginning of the Common Era around five hundred years after Gotama Buddha's death as a reaction to the way Buddhism had strayed from its origin as a meditative practice and become more of a religion. The Zen movement sought to strip away all the inessential rituals, constuming, and other trappings and get back down to the basics. This is evident in the name of the sect. "Zen" is the Japanese pronunciation of the Sanskrit word dhyana, meaning "meditation."
(Brad Warner: Sex, Sin, and Zen, p 4)

developed at the beginning of the Common Era

The beginning is usually attributed either to Shakyamuni Buddha or Bodhidharma, but it shows how actual historical information on Zen is hard to come by. And it doesn't matter anyway. Long ago somewhere far far away.

a reaction to the way Buddhism had strayed

Zen is returning to the original teachings of the Buddha. This is the real Buddhism.

from its origin as a meditative practice and become more of a religion

Buddhism is about meditation. It is not a religion, it only looks like one, but that is a mistake. That's why Buddhists in the West are called 'practitioners' because unless you meditate it is not even Buddhism.

Zen movement sought to strip away all the inessential rituals

Zen is a movement, not a religious sect or anything like that. And rituals are not important. Everything but meditation is inessential. Except for a little chanting, black robes, zafu, keisaku, gong, tea ceremony, prostrations, gardening, precepts, initiations, priests, etc. Those are just for decoration.

This is evident in the name of the sect. "Zen" is ... "meditation."

Meditate. Meditation. Zen is meditation. Buddhism is meditation. We could call this the "Meditation Only Movement".


p.s. No disrespect intended towards Brad Warner. It's just happened that it was his writing that caught my attention to this topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm said:
But I do have a mind, the last I checked (some may disagree of course), and as a matter of inference, is seemed unlikely to me (when I examined the question) that ultimately my stream of consciousness could have emerged from my brain alone (which is a necessary condition for sense cognitions, but in my opinion cannot account for knowing).

Astus wrote:
And that is the only topic where Buddhism needs to develop some proper arguments. Many of Shantarakshita's arguments against the materialists could be today refuted by the current understanding of neurology and biochemistry. For instance, he writes in relation to the body being the material cause of consciousness:

"What is a fact is that when the modification of one thing always follows the modification of another, then alone can the one be rightly regarded as the Material Cause of the other."
(Tattvasamgraha, §1886, vol 2, p 900)

Although there is no complete map of the human brain, but a strong correlation between the neural system and consciousness is quite apparent. There are many drugs people use daily to improve their mental functions, just as there are known physical symptoms of mental illnesses (p 912). There are also physical signs of one's emotional state (p 915), just as the brain still functions during the dream state and such (p 921). Explaining the actions of newborn infants do not require assuming previous lives (p 926), and mental states can often be explained by physical elements (p 933). Thus the usual Buddhist position is hard to maintain that

"Subjective Consciousness rests entirely upon the previous Consciousness; this is the idea expressed in the words 'Subjective Consciousness must be regarded as independent'. The reason for this 'independence' consists in the fact of its not requiring anything else, In all cases, this Subjective Consciousness proceeds entirely from its own Cause, because it does not stand in need of any causes other than its own, in the. shape of the Eye, etc.; as is found to be the case during sleep."
(p 922)

As you say, Buddhists should update themselves to the 21st century, if they want to be taken seriously and not as narrow minded people lost in a long gone era. Of course, there are Buddhists for whom such things as the philosophy of mind are not unknown, however, it is too easy to end up on the materialist side and lose important elements of Buddhism.

For those who believe that it is pointless to engage in science and philosophy as religion is mostly for the uneducated simple folk who believe whatever the authority figure says, it is partially true. Still, most human beings want to rationalise what they believe in. That's why reasoning and arguments matter. And those who are considered authentic sources of truth tend to be people with at least a little higher intellectual capacity than the average humans. Also, the more effort one puts into one's religion the more one wants to understand the details behind the surface.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Huifeng said:
When one throws a rock at a dog, the dog chases the rock,
When one throws a rock at a lion, the lion chases the thrower.

Astus wrote:
Problems exist in the mind. The tulku system worked for the Tibetans for centuries. Some may consider it an issue, but it seems to me most of the time people accept it as a unique feature of Tibetan Buddhism.

It is not easy to push through a revolution and it usually fails. In the realm of religion it is easier to go separately than to reform the existing structure. In Buddhism this is quite normal and happened in Tibetan too where there are some major and more minor sects. There is little meaning in endlessly criticising others. If you really don't like how it goes, work on finding or establishing a community that fits your ideals. There are already new independent groups making their own decisions about the administrative system and the teachings.

In the end every person is responsible for their Dharma practice. Blaming the church, the teachers or anyone else is meaningless. Your actions, your karma.

Dizang said, “I've heard you say several times that 'the three realms are only mind and the myriad dharmas are only consciousness.'” He pointed to a rock by the gate. “So do you say that this rock is inside or outside of mind?”
Fayan said, “Inside."
Dizang said, “How can a pilgrim carry such a rock in his mind while on pilgrimage?”
Dumbfounded, Fayan couldn't answer.
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 316; T47n1991_p0588b09-12)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Chan and Zen? If any?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think the Surangama Sutra is the one text that is central in Chan but rarely used in other countries.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: True Self in Jodo Shinshu
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I also wrote, the expression buddha-nature occurs with various meanings, but mostly as a synonym for buddhahood. To say that the goal of being born in the Pure Land is to attain buddhahood is not an unusual statement at all. So, why do you say it is an important thing that the word buddha-nature occurs among all the other words used?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: True Self in Jodo Shinshu
Content:
Astus wrote:
Occurrences of "buddha-nature" in the KGSS ( http://amidanet.com/dharma-treasury-index.htm ):
1.6 - in a quote, used for describing the Buddha, in 1.7 Shinran sums up how all the above quotes confirm the Larger Sutra as the ultimate teaching

2.87 - in a quote, identified as the One Vehicle, previously in 2.84 Shinran says that the ultimate One Vehicle is  the "One Buddha Vehicle of the Vow"

3.26 - in a quote, used to explain "true" for "true and sincere mind" (shijoshin) of the three minds. It was already explained in 2.13 that shijosin means "We should not show outwardly how wise, virtuous and diligent we are, because, inwardly, we entertain deceitfulness. Being possessed of all kinds of greed, anger, falsity, and crookedness, we can hardly remove our evil nature; we are indeed like snakes or scorpions." The quoted passage containing "buddha-nature" is meant to strengthen Shinran's statement that "the true and sincere mind endowed by the Buddha for our benefit through the inconceivable, indescribable and ineffable ocean-like Vow of great wisdom of the One Vehicle."

3.31 - in a quote, again used to establish that the Joyful Faith is based on Amitabha's compassion and not one's own effort, as introduced in 3.28.

3.105 - in a quote, used to praise nenbutsu practitioners

3.116 - in a quote, to show that the Buddha saves evil beings out of compassion

5.9 - in a quote, stating that the Buddha is not different from the buddha-nature

5.11 - in a quote, used as previously

5.15 - in a quote, used as previously

5.16 - in a quote, used as previously

5.17 - in a quote, icchantikas have buddha-nature, i.e. everybody can attain liberation

5.20 - in a quote, buddha-nature is hard to see

5.21 - in a quote, used as previously

5.37 - Shinran comments, liberation exists in the Pure Land
I wouldn't say he was "big on the attainment Buddha Nature" as he only uses it in one paragraph when not found in various quotes. The quotes are used in various contexts and they are not related to one's practice or anything that one should understand now. Buddha-nature is used as a synonym for various things (buddha qualities, compassion, liberation, potentiality of enlightenment, buddhahood) and not defined as anything central to the doctrine of Jodo Shinshu.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: True Self in Jodo Shinshu
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea of inherent enlightenment (hongaku) was irrelevant for Honen and Shinran, just as the concept of buddha-nature. For the simple reason that ordinary beings have no knowledge of it. Believing that one is already enlightened can easily lead to the misconception that one is not an ordinary being. Believing that there is a buddha-nature can easily lead to the misconception of an eternal soul. The teaching of inherent enlightenment is avoided, since the very first thing to understand an accept on the Pure Land path is that we are deluded ordinary beings incapable of saving ourselves. The teaching of buddha-nature is avoided for the same reason, it has no relevance and easily leads to false views. As for the buddhas and Amitabha Buddha in particular, of course they are perfect, enlightened, wise, and complete with all the great qualities.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Chan and Zen? If any?
Content:
Huifeng said:
So, relying on English language material is only going to show a tiny corner of Chan.

Astus wrote:
Many of the important works are translated to English. Except that they are not necessarily titled as Chan, but simply as sutras and other works. It is also quite true for Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism that "Chan" is a general word and not really a school. So we can say that the way Japanese Buddhism is fragmented into various schools is an exception, a result of historical development and how the state controlled Buddhist institutions. Just as in China it was the Chan movement that gained imperial support and eventually became the organisational frame for the whole of Chinese Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Chan and Zen? If any?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It should be noted that many American Zen teachers actually belong to a modern Zen movement called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanbo_Kyodan. The founders of that organisation were open to foreigners and they accepted people of other religions as students, like the Jesuit priest Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle. Sanbo Kyodan is not representative of all the other Japanese Zen schools.

One should also be aware that while in Japan we can talk of independent Zen institutions, in Chinese Buddhism the name "Chan" is often synonymous with Buddhism for various reasons, and not restricted to a specific set of teachings and methods.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Chan and Zen? If any?
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=147672#p147672

Also: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=9703

In short, both Chan and Zen are generic terms for various teachings and traditions. To find actual differences one better picks something from the Chinese side and something from the Japanese side. And there can be numerous differences between teachers even of the same lineage.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: It's a sign / Magical thinking is stupid
Content:
Astus wrote:
We aren't limited to UFOs here. What Buddhism understands to be causal fails most criteria for non-magical thinking.
Yes, where Buddhism says that one's intention and action modifies physical reality it is magical thinking. Only when karma is restricted to a personal mental continuum and its way of perception could we say that there is no "magic" involved. See this one here: https://eubuddhist.blogspot.com/2012/09/buddhist-magic.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: It's a sign / Magical thinking is stupid
Content:
Astus wrote:
Magical thinking supposes unknown causal relations and/or an external intelligent force. It can serve as an explanation for not understood events, it provides a feeling of power. It is basically cheating oneself, accepting a lie for the sake of emotional comfort. Is it stupid to feel safe? Not at all. Can it generate positive mental states? Yes. It is not much different from conspiracy theories and paranoia.

Citing "interdependence" means very little. It does not mean in Buddhism that everything is connected to everything, and such. It is used to prove that all phenomena are composites without a substance. Although it is true that traditionally Buddhism accepts magic as a real thing, it has no explanation for it whatsoever, therefore it is nothing but accepting the ruling cultural beliefs, just as today many like to connect biochemical phenomena to meditation.

Magical thinking is also a sign of mental proliferation, the desire to explain everything. But that nobody can explain everything does not mean that simple concepts (e.g. God, karma, energy, UFO's) are the solution. They are not much better than children's stories.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Anatta experience ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Realising that there is no self means simply the recognition of the lack of a substantial being. In fact, there never has been any self anywhere, it is only an idea, a feeling that there is a self. There is no self in any sensory experience, or even in our thoughts and emotions. So, to experience no self does not mean a new experience, it is the recognition that there has never been any being/actor/thinker/feeler/perceiver as all there is is experience (five aggregates, six sense gates) and all experience is impermanent (etc.). But it's the same experience as always. The difference lies in the wisdom of seeing them for what they actually are.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Written texts from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Chan Patriarchs
Content:
Astus wrote:
The works attributed to Hongren and Daoxin are considered works of the so called Northern Schools. Sengcan's poem is likely to be an even later work.

Hongren: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/Treatise%20on%20the%20Supreme%20Vehicle/Treatise%20on%20the%20Supreme%20Vehicle.htm or http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading0705.asp and http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading0706.asp

Daoxin: http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading0811.asp

Both works are also found in the appendix of Daido Loori's "The Art of Just Sitting". More about early Chan read McRae's https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Northern_School_and_the_Formation_of.html?id=5M4KAAAAYAAJ.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False
Content:
Astus wrote:
An old thread: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1084


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
SittingSilent said:
I know that may sound strange but it seems very depressing to me to give up my identity.

Astus wrote:
You don't lose any identity or self in Buddhism. It is about seeing what that "self" actually is, i.e. a series of corporal and mental phenomena that we like to identify with. But there is no loss of body or mind in the process, it's the concept of being one and the same thing all the time that is discovered to be false. That lack of permanent identity is what is called emptiness and no-self. Bodily perceptions change, feelings change, thoughts change, that's all. Nothing really new or unknown. It's just that we are conditioned to think that there is a stable core that remains the same. Understanding emptiness means understanding change. Change means that you can overcome whatever problem you may have, that you can move and evolve. You are not stuck with any eternal attribute or personality trait. And why this is important in Buddhism is to see that whenever we identify with a specific quality we may or may not possess, we struggle all the time to keep it the same, to organise everything around it, instead of being free and open about our life.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 7:33 PM
Title: Re: Permanence of Recognition?
Content:
Bhadantacariya said:
My objection to this argument is with recognition, take of blue for example: how can my recognition of blue occur if I or it are not the same as we were the first time I cognized blue?

Astus wrote:
Recognising something as "blue" is a thought process, that attaches to a range of visual experience the idea of blue. Physically, there are always different photons contacting photoreceptor cells and triggering a number of biological processes. In the Buddhist system of the 18 dhatus, visual consciousness occurs only when there is a visual form, and it happens only moment by moment. So, there is nowhere to be found any constant element.

The argument usually goes that if there were any perception or cognition that was permanent it would always be experienced. That is, a permanent thing permanently causing.

Bhadantacariya said:
If I am not the person who cognized blue that first time, how is it that I can recognize it? If the color blue is not the same color as it was when it was first cognized, how can it be recognized?

Astus wrote:
A form/colour is perceived by various mental processes. Mental processes constantly change. You don't always think of blue, do you? That one can recognise in separate instances that something is blue only means cognitive connection between visual perception and ideas of colours. It does not mean that you see the same thing every time, that's only a very superficial (non-analysed, naive) approach.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
The Pure Land is right here. The problem is recognizing.

Astus wrote:
That's a very symbolist self-power approach. Most of the Pure Land teachings (e.g. Shandao, Yongming, Yinguang; Honen, Shinran) are not like that, and aspiring for birth in the Pure Land - as an actual place - is common in most Mahayana schools.

It is also quite pointless to give the same teachings already told in a complicated metaphorical way.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
Also, I thought that Samsara were the Six Spiritual Realms, which are basically the 28 planes of existence. But of course I'm always wrong

Astus wrote:
Yes, samsara consists of the six realms and 28 planes. At the same time, all of that are products of karma and forms of experience.

Sukhavati is outside of samsara in the sense that there is no suffering and people definitely attain enlightenment there.


