﻿Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
But, if Sukhavati were a "normal" galaxy, and with that I mean, observable or visible to human eyes, wouldn't that make it part of Samsara? Everything we see with our humans eyes born and dies, stars, planets, people, every living being.

Astus wrote:
Samsara and nirvana are not places but types of experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
That does not mean that if the Pure Land is physical (in your description of the term) then it is observable by our own human eyes, as we can't see neither Devas realms, so why Pure Land would be an exception? After all is outside Samsara, and is a Buddha realm (would be wrong to consider Pure Land as or in the 10th Realm (Buddha realm)? )

My doubts started when I saw a video of Master Sheng Yen, when he said that Pure Land is a galaxy in the west, so I thought that is was visible by our normal human eyes (if we could get there somehow). Of course Pure Land is above all and inside everyone.  Immanent and transcended?

Before starting to touch Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi, do you think is a good idea to start with "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations"?

Astus wrote:
Being a buddha-land doesn't necessarily mean that it is outside of samsara, but that was a topic of another thread. Sukhavati is without suffering, so it is necessarily outside of samsara, and because it has all sorts of residents it is a mixed buddha land. Also note that in Tiantai's presentation of the ten realms there is also the teaching of "three thousand realms in a thought", that is, that all realms contain all the others.

You could say it is in a galaxy to the west. Why not? Not that we could just explore it anyway. Saying that Sukhavati is "immanent and transcendent" would imply a symbolic interpretation, and that's OK, but then it is a symbol for enlightenment, and as such it is not understood that way normally if one practises for birth in the Pure Land through the vow of Amitabha.

Yes, it is a good introductory book.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
can you delineate the major principles of what Buddha said about cosmology? Which correct views one should adopt, a proper way of understanding. I want to know more to study in that line

Astus wrote:
See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_spiritual_realms.
Further, the Abhidharmakosa (vol 2) has a description of the spatial and temporal cosmology.

zamotcr said:
I want to but I feel lost. There a lot of disagreements between masters, every Master explain the same things in very different ways.

Astus wrote:
Start with the basics: Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi. And when you have a difficult topic, you can always open a discussion here on the forum.

zamotcr said:
Perhaps they are here, but our senses are limited by something that does not let us see them around us.

Astus wrote:
In Buddhism it is called the "divine eye" with what it is possible to see spirits and gods. You might also call it an "inner eye", like what is used in meditation. You might think then that it is mental, however, just as in dreams, you can see forms, hear sounds, etc., so it is physical.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
Seriously, it is hard to drop for me the current view of the world. I will have to, but I don't know how and at the end, are Buddha and Science compatible or can both have an arrangement?

Astus wrote:
Dropping a view and putting it aside are two different things. There are many ways to analyse something, and you don't need to refuse physics to do an aesthetic evaluation. Religion is not philosophy, mathematics, sport or economics, but it also does not exclude any of them. It makes no sense to claim that only "purple" is true while "yellow" is false as they are just various colours. At the same time, it is also pointless to say that purple and yellow are compatible, they mean the same thing, etc.

zamotcr said:
If I can't use reasoning in which way is that better than Christianity?

Astus wrote:
First of all, reasoning has many forms and just because something is logical it doesn't mean it is true (or false). It is good to be reasonable, and denying the force of rationality is exactly what it is: irrational. Christianity has many forms too, and at least the older, mainstream churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.) have no problem with reasoning, philosophy and science. Theology itself is a combination of faith and reason.

Secondly, in what sense can one religion be better than the other? It is a matter of personal choice and taste. But of course, arguments for the truth/superiority of one belief over the other is abundant.

If you want to understand the way various Pure Land teachings are considered orthodox Mahayana, you need to study Mahayana. Explanations in Pure Land works assume that one is already familiar with general Mahayana.

zamotcr said:
And believing that Pure Land is a physical realm, is not materialism?

Astus wrote:
Physical in Buddhism means that something is perceived by the five bodily senses. The only purely mental realm in Buddhism is called the arupaloka, where no form exists at all. That means that from Avici to Akanishta everything is physical. Since Sukhavati has many physical characteristics, as described in the sutras, it is also considered physical in its Buddhist sense.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Rakshasa said:
To me Shikantaza sounds like Satipatthhana of Pali canon? Or is there any difference?

Astus wrote:
Satipatthana is a complex system that includes numerous meditation techniques based on the early teachings. Shikantaza is a single method based on late Mahayana teachings. Without considering the doctrinal context of the two methods there is no point in making any comparisons. And even from the practical perspective, Satipatthana contains several stages of calming and analysing. Shikantaza has none of that, it has no stages nor goals, it is perfect from the beginning.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is a huge gap between the modern understanding of the world and the ancient one. This difference could be grasped by the single word "physical". To us something is either physical/perceptible/comprehensible/regular/real or spiritual/mental/supernatural/fantastic. This is an old method of demonising and disqualifying an unwanted view. The Pure Land is not physical, so not like our world, so it is far away, and maybe even just a symbol or a pious myth. This way we end up reinforcing our received cultural education and rejecting/transforming anything that does not fit into it. And that's absolutely normal. The Pure Land teachings could spread because it fit well into people's preconditioning, that the world is inhabited by other forms of intelligent life. Modern scientific education comes from an opposite view, that denies all "superstitions" (although once the word superstition was applied to pagan beliefs by Christians).

My take on the matter is that if you want to understand Buddhist cosmology, especially its Mahayana version, you have to become a proper philosopher, and put aside everything (or rather, as much as you can) you think about the world and start anew, establishing yourself on the Buddha's words. That is, the world is what we experience as the world. Our experience is formed by our habits. Entire worlds can become out of beings' habitual impulses. This is what samsara is about. Buddhas are beings who have not only defeated their habits (karma), but out of compassion gained mastery over their experience. That way buddhas establish various lands to assist deluded beings in gaining liberation. All the abilities of the buddhas are made out of perfect merits that were created by perfect deeds (paramitas) and steered by vows - this is what the bodhisattva path is about. Amitabha is one of the many buddhas, and his story is about how he, as a bodhisattva, made his 48 special vows to create a land where every willing person can attain birth.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Cosmology and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't think there are specific rules in Buddhism about how should various realms exist. There is certainly no sophisticated cosmological doctrine that explains all the details, as it'd be mostly a philosopher's job. Amitabha's land lacks oceans too. It is meant to be a very pleasant place. Yes, it is normally categorised beyond the samsaric realms, that's how beings can stay there indefinitely.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 25th, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
WuMing said:
Or do you want to imply that Zen teachers do not speak from their own experience when they instruct their disciples and followers, just words out of the blue?

Astus wrote:
What I mean is that when anyone wants to teach another person, one tries to say things that are meant for the student. So, if the teacher says something is simple/complicated, easy/difficult, etc., it is meant for the listener, and it is neither bragging about one's own greatness nor complaining about one's former hardships. It is meant for the student to understand it in this way or that way. Teaching, as I see it, is not a therapy session where one talks about personal memories in front of others, especially when it does not benefit the audience.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
WuMing said:
True. Or course, it is simple! But not easy to do. Such a statement (as all other such similar statements do) comes from a person with a long history of practice, years of practice, the exchange with a teacher. It "requires" and demands a lot to come to this place.

Astus wrote:
I doubt that she's talking about of herself. It was meant for Zen followers. As for whether it is difficult or easy, there is a nice story of Layman Pang and his family.

The layman was sitting in his thatched cottage one day. "Difficult, difficult, difficult," he suddenly exclaimed, "[like trying] to scatter ten measures of sesame seed all over a tree!"
"Easy, easy, easy," returned Mrs. P'ang, "just like touching your feet to the ground when you get out of bed."
"Neither difficult nor easy," said Ling-chao. "On the hundred grass-tips, the Patriarchs' meaning."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
LastLegend said:
Is Shikantaza limited to just sitting in one place or "sitting" here means the mind sits undisturbed anywhere?

Astus wrote:
Dogen writes in the Fukanzazengi, "Don’t think about “good” or “bad”. Don’t judge true or false. Your mind, intellect, and consciousness are spinning around – let them have rest. Give up measuring with thoughts, ideas, and views. Have no designs on becoming a Buddha. How could that be limited to sitting or lying down?"

And in the http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazenshin/zazenshin.translation.html, "Then there is another type of person [who says,] "To pursue the way in seated meditation is a function essential for the "beginner's mind and the latter-day student", but it is not necessarily an observance of the buddhas and ancestors. 'Walking is Zen, sitting is Zen; whether in speech or silence, motion or rest, the substance is at ease.' Do not adhere solely to the present concentrated effort [of seated meditation]." Many of the type calling itself a branch of the Linji [lineage] are of this view. It is because they are deficient in transmitting the right life of the buddha-dharma that they speak thus. What is the "beginner's mind"? Where is there no "beginner's mind"? Where do we leave the "beginner's mind"?"

And in the Shinjingakudo (tr. Nishijima-Cross), "As we continue, moment by moment, to give up the body and receive the body—whether for three great asaṃkheyas of kalpas, for thirteen great asaṃkheyas of kalpas, or for countless great asaṃkheyas of kalpas—the momentary state of learning the truth is always to learn the truth in forward steps and backward steps. To do a prostration and to bow with joined hands are the moving and still forms of dignified behavior. In painting a picture of a withered tree, and in polishing a tile of dead ash, there is not the slightest interval."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
They are about shikantaza, they claim so in those writings. That is, none of them are for specific problems. Keizan in the http://antaiji.org/?page_id=7136&lang=en gives specific instructions for specific problems, but he also simply says: "Be beyond thinking. This is the essence of zazen." Just as Dogen in the http://www.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.translation.html: "Nonthinking. This is the art of zazen."

From one of the teachers at http://www.wwzc.org/ comes this explanation of hishiryo:

It's all very simple. So simple that we don't know what to think about it. We sit. The longer we sit, the more we see that any thought that comes up is just another thought and that all thoughts arise within the vastness of Awareness. When we think, we are experiencing thinking. Depending on the extent to which we are practicing, there is some awareness of the thinking. If we are not practicing at all, we have withdrawn, obsessed with our stories, recoiling from present experiencing into fabricated labyrinths that lead us nowhere and teach us nothing. When we practice, we can allow the thoughts to rise and fall and know simultaneously that they are only thoughts, without substance, and allow them to be simply a movement, like a breeze rustling through leaves.
( http://www.wwzc.org/dharma-text/thinking-about-not-thinking )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: seeing my true nature
Content:
Astus wrote:
This short text sums up well Bodhidharma's teachings, explaining in brief the principle (true nature) and the function (practice) of zen: http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enBodhiDharmaSutraWithAnnotation.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 23rd, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
What you described with the example of a duel is an aware and unattached mind. I don't see the difference here between that and the above descriptions of hishiryo, aside from the dramatic metaphor.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 22nd, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
All the above sources are presented as instructions and definitions of shikantaza. You claim they are not. Can you substantiate that with reliable sources?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
Yes, it is hishiryo for Dogen, as stated in the "Popular Fukanzazengi", and that corresponds to the following in his "Tenpuku Fukanzazengi" and Zongze's Zuochanyi (see correspondence here: http://terebess.hu/zen/Fukanzazengi-6.pdf ):

"When thought arises, be aware of it. When you are aware of it, it will disappear. Put aside everything outside continuously, and make yourself into one piece."

This also goes back to the earlier teaching of Zongmi (Chan Prolegomenon), Huineng (no thought) and Zhiyi ( http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v2/v2p2-1p5.htm ). As for Uchiyama, there is a complete book by him: Opening the Hand of Thought. Again, he says nothing different from the above. Or here's the instruction from his disciple, http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/okumura-zazen.shtml:

"In zazen we simply allow any thought, feeling or emotion to come up and then we simply let them go away; we actually do nothing. In sitting, any thought or condition of mind is like a cloud in the sky."

Also, on the official Soto Zen site, in an essay on hishiryo the same source (Tenpuku Fukanzazengi) and the same explanation is used by http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms08.pdf:

"When a thought arises during zazen and we become aware of it, it disappears by itself. And when another thought arises, we again become aware of it and it disappears. If we maintain this process, we naturally put aside everything outside and become one with ourselves. This is exactly the state of mind during zazen and the content of hishiryo."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Locality of nibbanna
Content:
Huifeng said:
Without being more specific where various ideas and views on nirvana come from, but all throwing them into the discussion, things are only going to get more confused than clearer.  The understanding of this term -- and we were only given a term without any specific context or tradition point of view to be with -- vary a considerable amount over time and place.

Astus wrote:
Just as Master Huifeng says. Buddhism has many forms, many styles, many teachings. Without context all meaning is lost.

Simply put, samsara is being moved by greed, anger and ignorance. Nirvana is freedom from (putting out) those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_%28Buddhism%29.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Advice for the young layperson
Content:
Astus wrote:
There's nothing special about being young or a layperson. Buddhism offers the same to everyone. The difference lies in the level of commitment. You can simply call yourself a Buddhist without any content. You can take one, two, three or dozens of precepts and follow them to the best of your abilities. You can read nice books and ponder about the meaning of life. You can do some sort of meditation regularly or not so regularly. And many many more. It is really up to you. You can follow a single teaching, a single practice, or you can follow a complex teaching with a variety of methods. Being young and a layperson has meaning only to you, as you define your level of interest in the Dharma.

The Mahayana has the six paramitas as the basic description of the path of the bodhisattva. You can read about them from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna in this book: http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/n6p_book_page.htm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantideva 's inspiring poem is also a very good introduction to Mahayana: books.google.com/books?id=IEqvQBKyA6MC. And the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimalakirti_Sutra is a great example of how lay life and Buddhism can come together, not to mention it is a quite funny scripture: https://www.bdkamerica.org/digital/dBET_Srimala_Vimalakirti_2004.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana views on dying and intermediate state
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jinul writes (Chinul's Works, p 141; in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 2):

At the moment of your death, wind and fire will oppress you, the four material elements (mahābhūta) will separate and scatter, and the mind will go mad, feeling stifled and cramped, and become subject to the inversions (viparyāsa) and distorted views. As you have no stratagem for soaring into the heavens above nor any plan through which to enter the earth below, you will cower in fright, bereft of everything on which you used to rely. Your physical body will be left behind as if it were a cicada’s cast-off shell. Confused about the road stretching before you, your lonely spirit will have to go on alone. Although you may have owned precious jewelry and priceless riches, you can take none of it with you. Although you may have relatives from prestigious households, ultimately not one of them can follow along behind to rescue you. This is what is meant by the statement, “What one makes oneself, one receives oneself; there is no one to take one’s place.”

Then quotes Baizhang (p 142),

"[At the time of your death,] all the unwholesome actions you performed throughout your lifetime will appear before you, either alarming or pleasing you. The six rebirth destinies (s.ad. gati) and the five aggregates of being (pañcaskandha) will appear before you, and you will see beautifully decorated houses, skiffs, carts, and palanquins all shining brilliantly. [These sights] make your mind dissolute so that the things you view with greed and lust are all transformed into pleasing sensory objects. You will be reborn at the spot where those sights are most intense, without one iota of choice in the matter; whether as a dragon or an ox, whether of high or low status, absolutely nothing is fixed."

Only enlightened beings are capable of choosing their birth. Jinul quotes Sengzhao (Straight Talk on the True Mind, in "Collected Works of Chinul", p 181):

"Saints abide in existence but are nonexistent; they dwell in nonexistence but are not nonexistent. Although they cling neither to existence nor nonexistence, they do not reject existence or nonexistence. Therefore, their light blends harmoniously with the troubles of the dusty world. They pass between the five destinies, calmly going, suddenly coming. Tranquil, they do nothing and yet there is nothing they do not do."

Therefore, ordinary people cannot do anything once dead to change their birth, and enlightened beings are free from the constraints of karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Matylda said:
ST has nothing to do with rise and fall, neither it is integration of breath awarness and ST... nor Zhiy taught ST.
The only close source for ST is Wanshi Shogaku teaching.

Astus wrote:
I said that based on what is found in Dogen's, Keizan's and Uchiyama's instructions, plus others, about shikantaza. How do you define shikantaza?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shikantaza is almost what in Theravada they call the awareness of rise and fall, the difference lies in the background explanation. So it's not difficult to integrate breath awareness and shikantaza, since shikantaza is basically prajnaparamita. As mentioned above, if you follow Zhiyi's Six Gates then you cover it all in an organised fashion.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: Daesung Sunim
Content:
Astus wrote:
So there is a Korean monk who cannot make a difference between the Buddha's teachings and those who believe in an ultimate self. Perhaps they should strengthen their studies of actual Buddhist doctrines instead of spreading incorrect views.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
Following the breath is breath meditation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapanasati and http://kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/sgs_book_page.htm ). Shikantaza is something else, as explained in that video. See the http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/okumura-zazen.shtml of Shohaku Okumura. You may also look at the http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html, although as an end note there it mentions breath awareness (and makes an incorrect distinction between Hinayana and Mahayana), in the actual guide on what to do with the mind it only says, "Do not concentrate on any particular object or control your thought. ... Just leave thoughts alone, allowing them to come up and go away freely. The essential thing in doing zazen is to awaken (kakusoku) from distraction and dullness, and return to the right posture moment by moment." The http://antaiji.org/?page_id=7136&lang=en is also a very good classical instruction.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice
Content:
Indrajala said:
What you're referring to is the prescriptive. I'm referring to the descriptive.

Astus wrote:
Do you have a description of any Buddhist group/tradition where the majority of followers are fulfilling the prescribed teachings? And if your criticism is about how certain people act it does not address the teaching itself.

Indrajala said:
This is an article of faith that would seem contrary to traditional theories of karma, including what the Buddha described.

Astus wrote:
Karma is an article of faith. The possibility of birth in a buddha-land is not contrary to karma as I see it. Could you explain what you see here as a contradiction?

Indrajala said:
Saying you can neglect proper study and get superior results to one who actually put in the time and effort to study is like saying the amateur surgeon is commendable for their good intentions.

Astus wrote:
Nobody said that. The idea in gaining birth in the Pure Land is to postpone that required study and effort. And it is postponed because in one's current situation such study and effort is not possible and/or not certain to bring results. The attainment of buddhahood is guaranteed only on the stage of no regression. Since there's hardly any living teacher who claims to be anything but an ordinary person (pudgala), on what basis can one have faith that one would be more successful in practising the Dharma? Therefore it only seems logical that aspiring for birth in the Pure Land is the most sensible decision. To use your example, mastering surgery takes lot of education and practice, and that costs time and money. While a few may be rich and already finished primary and secondary education, many people have trouble not just with biology and chemistry, but with the basic skills of literacy and mathematics, plus they are quite poor and busy with making a living. And even among those who are qualified surgeons, only a handful of them are really good at what they do.

Indrajala said:
As I have demonstrated above, this is not so

Astus wrote:
Could you give a link to your explanation?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 27th, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice
Content:
Indrajala said:
Focusing exclusively on gaining entry into the Pure Land while largely ignoring and/or disregarding the core teachings of Buddhadharma is unwise.

Pure Land as it is commonly practiced is more Devayāna in my estimation. You attempt to gain the graces of a certain buddha in the hopes of being freed from the pains of this world and thereafter ascend into a higher realm, but this is said to only be possible postmortem.

You can say the whole point is to advance one's bodhisattva career thereafter, but this is hardly what I have observed in real life.

Astus wrote:
You refer to your observations among common Buddhists. However, no religion is defined by its lay followers, but by its canonical works and accepted interpretations. It is easy to point to ordinary people failing to follow the teachings of their chosen faith anywhere in the world. And here's an important difference between the Path of Sages and the Path of Pure Land (according to Honen): simply by nenbutsu people attain birth in the Pure Land. They don't need to understand anything about karma, buddhas, lands, or even the three minds and four practices. On the other hand, on the Path of Sages one needs not only to understand such concepts as emptiness, rebirth, mind only, merit, etc. but also actualise them. One needs to uphold not just the five precepts but also avoid minor offences and accomplish great deeds.

The Pure Land path is not Devayana, as the Pure Land is not merely a heavenly realm, and the goal of any informed practitioner is not to gain some sort of eternal salvation in Paradise but to fulfil the bodhisattva vows. One understands the impermanence of this world and every other realms in samsara, moreover one realises the deficiency in one's abilities and circumstances. As Shakyamuni was a rich prince who renounced worldly affairs, Honen was an erudite and respected monk who gave up all his studies and meditation for the nenbutsu.

The core teachings of Buddhism are not disregarded at all. In fact, the Pure Land teaching is built upon them. There is no meaning to the entire teaching of any Pure Land tradition without Mahayana. Madhyamaka teaches that the essence of the Buddhadharma is insight into emptiness. Yogacara teaches that the essence is insight into mind only. Zen teaches that the essence is insight into the nature of mind. All of them find insight into suchness as the cardinal point of the bodhisattva path, what separates ordinary people from noble beings. The path of Pure Land - in Honen's presentation - is something that presents an option for those who fail to gain such wisdom, and gives them a simple and easy practice to gain that liberating realisation in the next life. He does not say that such an insight is not important, nor does he say that practising the paramitas and upholding the precepts is meaningless. He just recognises that those are not easy things to accomplish, especially for common householders. He accepts that enlightenment in this life does not happen to everyone. How is that contrary to the Buddha's teachings?

What Honen observed in himself, and others, is not very different from what you say, that people mostly pretend to be practitioners, and even those who do it seriously often fail to show the qualities that the Blessed One's teachings should bring about. The majority of Buddhists are far from being saints, and among those with seemingly pure ethics it is difficult to find wise ones. But instead of criticising others, Honen pointed his finger to himself and said that he is just an ordinary human being who has no other choice but to rely on the nenbutsu. He did not write pamphlets and treatises about how wrong and corrupt everybody else are, rather he advised his followers to desist from quarrelling with other Buddhists and instead respect them. This is something one can rarely see even among the most outstanding masters.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?
Content:
Indrajala said:
I find Pure Land philosophy inconsistent and simply unappealing. It moreover seems contrary to a lot of what I would think constitutes Buddhadharma. The idea of attempting to escape the world and achieve eventual liberation by hoping for rebirth in a celestial paradise at death based on the purported vows of a buddha is hardly in line with early Buddhism or even more mainstream Indian Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
Bodhisattvas postpone their complete liberation till all beings are liberated. Also, bodhisattvas visit numerous buddha-lands to serve, respect and learn from many buddhas. This is taught in early Mahayana. Aspiring for birth in Amitabha's land fits into this perfectly. Sukhavati is recommended over other lands because it is said to be the easiest to get into, that it does not require one to be an arya-bodhisattva. Among the various practices recitation is recommended simply because it is easier than visualisation. How is all this contrary to Buddhadharma?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
All Pure Land practices and teachings are Mahayana. Looking at the Agamas and Nikayas is pointless as those are not Mahayana. The exclusive nenbutsu is a teaching of Honen as described in his many writings.

In the Agamas and Nikayas only the sravaka path is taught. Mahayana is about the bodhisattva path. Infinite buddhas and buddha-lands are taught within the Mahayana scriptures, and the methods to establish a connection with various buddhas and attain birth in buddha-lands. Amitabha is one of those buddhas and Sukhavati is one of those buddha-lands. For numerous reasons, as Honen explained, the sole practice of nenbutsu is enough to attain birth in Sukhavati and be assured of reaching buddhahood.

So, what is the origin of Pure Land practice? The Mahayana sutras. Are the Mahayana sutras authentic? Only for Buddhists who follow them. Is authenticity based on verifiable historical findings? No. How could then modern research about the development of Buddhism have any relevance to the validity of Pure Land teachings? Even without all the scholarly arguments there are many past and present Buddhists who don't accept Honen's teachings, otherwise everybody were his followers.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 7th, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:
rory said:
Western esotericism derived from Jewish and Christian magic and Kabbalism and that derived from Greek and Egyptian magical treatises (see the above).

Astus wrote:
I said "without having a direct contact with Buddhism or any Hindu religion" related to ancient philosophers. Also, "New Age ... is less an implementation of Indian thoughts than a renewal of Western esoteric ideas". Europeans knew about various Buddhist and Eastern ideas from the 16th century on. What I say is that the Western tradition, while had influence from Asia, it relied more on its own predecessors. And as an example I gave the idea of reincarnation, something that existed within the European tradition before Westerners started to colonise and convert Asian countries. I quoted ancient Christian writers only to show that they made no reference to any Indian thinker when refuting the idea of reincarnation, that is, they had no direct contact with India or other Asian territories. That in ancient times there was some sort of contact between India, Greece and the Romans is well known, but it does not mean any massive cultural influence. And even today, against all the popular books on Taoism, Yoga, Buddhism, etc., it is on one hand transformed in today's context, and they still represent only a minor and exotic aspect in Western thought.

And all that was just an example, as the topic is a supposed Christian influence on modern Buddhism, something that I don't see as an established fact.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 7:07 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Humanistic Buddhism is not necessarily a new idea. Maitreya cults existed in China centuries before and they tried to create a Pure Land on Earth (even with violent means). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taixu, who is said to be the founder of this modern movement, was influenced by the political changes in early 20th century China, and it's said he also participated somewhat in overthrowing the Qing dynasty. But it is only in Taiwan that the idea could actually manifest through the works of people like Yinshun, Xingyun, Shengyan and others. In some sense we could say that this idea of "modernising Buddhism" is a good way to distance oneself from continental ("communist") Buddhism as it exists now, and deflect attacks that Buddhism is outdated and backward. However, this has very little, or rather nothing, to do with Christianity or even direct Western influence.

It is easy to make biased claims when one has a very partial knowledge of the various processes that took place in a far away land. For example, that reincarnation and meditation are strictly Eastern ideas is such an uninformed view. While New Age embraces Asian ideas, it is less an implementation of Indian thoughts than a renewal of Western esoteric ideas. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul. Also, ancient Christian teachers rejected the idea of reincarnation (see http://www.catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation ) without having a direct contact with Buddhism or any Hindu religion.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
On what bases are those influences attributed to Christianity? The 19th and 20th century Western intellectual elite was (and still is) secular. Those who did not reject Buddhism completely as idolatry were secular thinkers and not God fearing theologians. The romantic view of Buddhism as a human achievement was made up by those who did not agree with the whole idea of religion as it was perceived in Europe. Therefore to say that "The Buddha could be seen as a humane religious reformer on the model of Jesus, teaching through parables and other simple and straightforward means." is inappropriate. Turning Jesus into a mere human being is a detestable belief by all mainstream Christians and a heretic idea since 325 (First Council of Nicaea). Also, viewing Jesus as some sort of counter-culture hero is far from the Christian perspective, especially of the 19th century and before, since it has been the established order in Europe from the beginning of the Middle Ages that it is God who ultimately gives legitimacy to kings and other worldly rulers.

All in all, Christianity is the wrong place to look at for modern sources of changes in Buddhism. It is rather the secular thinkers (philosophers, artists, politicians, scientists) who made the greatest impact.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: "Four articles of conversion"
Content:
Astus wrote:
"I will practice the four all-embracing acts (giving, kind speech, benefiting others, and cooperation toward leading all beings to virtuous deeds) for all living beings, and not for myself. I accept all living beings without lust, without satiation, and without prejudice."
(Sutra of Queen Śrīmālā of the Lion’s Roar, ch 2; tr. Diana Y. Paul)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
futerko said:
There seems to me to be a marked difference between claiming that the basis is empty/illusory and simply denying it altogether. What you’re calling interdependence here looks basically like a list of effects without any substantive cause, but still treating the objects as if they were substantial and actual.

There seem to be two basic ways to treat this; either as actual causes and effects, which would require some kind of exceptional causal event (such as the big bang, or and act of creation), or to see the effects themselves as symptomatic of the illusory nature of the ground of Being.

In other words, despite denying “another ground”, you still seem to be relying on a transcendent ontology.

Astus wrote:
An illusory basis is that there seems to be one but there is not. And that is true for those who believe in an ultimate ground/self, for them there appears to be such a thing while in fact there is not. What I say is that there are causes and effects. There is no cause without effect, and there is no cause that was not caused by another cause. A ground would be an effect without cause.

Why the need for an exceptional causal event? Do you assume that once there was nothing?

What transcendent ontology do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't accept that explanation. I found the source for that argument, it was from the Dalai Lama's statement on reincarnation:
Similar causes produce similar results (samanantara-pratyaya), from a previous mental dharma a new mental dharma comes. This is a generally established factor in Buddhist teachings on causality and karma. From that it does not come that there is some ultimate substance that is maintained from moment to moment, or an independent consciousness persisting through time. It actually confirms the momentariness of mind and the concept of mind-stream.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
It's illusion all the way down.

Astus wrote:
Infinite regression occurs when you posit a ground, and when asked what that ground stands on you claim there is another ground. I don't say there is a ground. The orbit of the Earth is influenced both by the Sun and other planets, not to mention its own mass and other factors. That's interdependence. Proposing a ground without cause is just a turtle flying in space (like Great A'Tuin).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
futerko said:
For interdependence to be "truly true", as opposed to merely the play of appearances of that which is uncaused, you need to posit a first cause.

What you refer to here as, "many results", created "dependent things", and generated "impermanent things", all have their "first cause" as ignorance.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by "truly true"? Appearances are like a dream, a mirage, an illusion, etc., as many sutras say, both Nikayas and Mahayana texts.

Ignorance is not a "first cause" because it has its causes too. If ignorance were without a cause it could not be ended.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
In response to devarupa, I commented that this is also known as self-awareness direct perception (rang rig mngon sum), and is defined http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Valid_direct_perception_of_self-awareness as, "the unmistaken non-conceptual reflexive awareness that accompanies all states of mind".

A further assertion is that self-reflexive knowing is primal. When the ignorance of self-grasping becomes wisdom, the self-illumining quality remains.

Astus wrote:
Xuanzang in the Cheng Weishi Lun (Keenan: p 61-64,  ch 3.11-12/ Wei Tat: 139-143, 2.3.2-3) describes a maximum of four aspects (bhaga) of consciousness. The seen (nimitta), the seeing (darsana), self-knowing (svasamvitti), and self-knowing knowing (svasamvitti-samvitti). The object is known by the subject, that by self-knowing what is known by the self-knowing knowing, and that is known by self-knowing itself to avoid infinite regression. That is: object <-- seeing <-- self-knowing <--> self-knowing knowing. Self-knowing and its knowing are both direct perceptions. An important point here is that there is know subject/seeing/knowing without object. Also, the four parts can be reduced to three (seen, seeing, self-knowing), two (seen and seeing) and even one (consciousness). These functions are not defined by whether one grasps a self or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm said:
what do you mean by independent knowing?

Astus wrote:
Knowing without an object, pure subjectivity, self-contained awareness. Consciousness that does not require conditions to bring it about.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
Yes, the knowing quality of the mind is fundamentally empty. As far as I know, no one is saying otherwise. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility self-reflexive knowing. This is why, in a reply to daverupa, I noted that we need to be clear on the distinction between self-reflexive knowing and self-grasping. Self-knowing is just that, knowing that knows itself. Nothing more. Relative to the trikaya model, it is only the ignorance of self-grasping that imputes a substantial (instead of empty), isolated (instead of unified with it's radiance) self-knowing.

Astus wrote:
We know that we are sentient beings simply because we sense things and we are aware of this process. This is self-awareness. Would you call this knowing that knows itself? If so, this is not a problematic idea at all. Only if you suppose some independent knowing that knows itself is there a problem.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
futerko said:
...the point being that this does not thereby refute the idea of the base/ground as the alternative to the causal chain of ignorance.

Astus wrote:
Such a ground is necessarily without cause, therefore does not agree with interdependence. A ground also has other problems, like a single cause of many results, independent while creating dependent things, permanence generating impermanent things, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
futerko said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't formations (and hence the rest) dependent on ignorance? In other words, there is no first cause, and no origination.

Astus wrote:
Yes, as you say. Formations come from ignorance, ignorance is interdependent with ingrained habits, and both are maintained and generated by further actions, deeds that are themselves motivated by ignorance.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
I have heard the argument that mind, being of the nature of clarity and awareness, must have clarity and awareness as its substantial cause, as like must come from like. This argument also says that mind is not something that can be produced or artificially created. So that would suggest that mind is not something that can be reduced or explained in terms of something else, would it not?

Astus wrote:
There is a mental continuum, series of thoughts, emotions, habits, etc. The idea is that the cause of rebirth lies in ingrained habits (taints/asrava and defilements/klesa; summed up as alayavijnana in Yogacara) and they are mental phenomena/dharma, therefore the demise of the physical body does not hinder the generation of further births. But stating a radical separation of mind and matter (nama-rupa) is unnecessary, as in the 18 dhatu system we see how external phenomena take part in forming various consciousnesses, and in the mind only systems we find the explicit inclusion of all appearances into a single realm of experience. The substantiation of mind as an independent awareness goes against the general meaning of dependent origination and postulates an ultimate self.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)? To hijack a zen phrase, is it possible to " turn the light and illuminate back?" From the perspective of self-reflexive knowing, this can be interpreted as taking the light of one's awareness and turning it back on itself. There are folks who say this can be done, and describe it as a singular experience.

Astus wrote:
The Zen phrase does not mean a self-contained knowing, it means to see the mental states we just follow and not recognise, that is, acting out of emotions and convictions. And in some sense this is in fact mind seeing mind, and in ordinary language it is appropriate to call it self-reflection.

There is no knowing quality on its own. Consciousness does not exist alone. Therefore, there is nothing to turn back on itself. In other words, mind is not a singular entity.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Let's look at conceptual appearances. Upon what, specifically, do these "dependent appearances" depend?

Astus wrote:
The six senses depend on mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality depends on consciousness, consciousness depends on formations. In short, interdependence, and not dependence on an ultimate ground/base/substance as some believe.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
So you equate the jhanas with mindlessness?

Astus wrote:
Not at all. Absorptions are all mental activities themselves.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
Why then is there significance given to dhyana states such as the 'immaterial dhyanas'? Do you think when yogis are in those states they are simply inert? Might they as well be asleep? The way I would understand it, this is what is implied by 'passing beyond duality', but it is not simply 'unconsciousness'. It is consciousness without the sense of there being an observer. "Contentless consciousness" is one description I have read.

Astus wrote:
Arupa-dhyanas only exclude rupa but not the mental aggregates. All the qualities of the fourth dhyana are also present, so it is far from being an inert state. And the formless absorptions are not "beyond duality" either, at least not as realisations or mental states. A contentless consciousness is a misleading poetical term, or a mistaken philosophical concept, depending on what you mean by it. The realm that is without all mental functions ("contents") in Buddhism is found within the form realm and it's called the realm/heaven of unconscious beings (asamjnisattva; 無想天).


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
Consider a situation when there is no internal or external stimulus for the mind.  In that situation, the mind should still be aware that it is aware in spite of the lack of any form of stimulus (ie. appearance).  So to me, reflexivity should be part and parcel of mind itself.

Astus wrote:
When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness. Mind does not exists as some container, it is not above and beyond mental content. That's why in Buddhism there is the teaching of the eighteen dhatus. There is no "consciousness itself" in Buddhism, not even in Yogacara (Asanga-Vasubandhu, Xuanzang). If there were such a thing it would mean that everyone is always aware, but that's not the case. It would mean there is a consciousness independent of everything else, consequently not conscious of anything other than itself. What would be the use of that kind of self-contained consciousness? It would be like an unmoved mover that doesn't actually move anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
I think we all accept the higer-order knowing model: I see an apple; I know that I see an an apple.

The trikaya model takes this three-aspect approach. The three facits/dimensions are, 1. emptiness, 2. clarity (knowing), and 3. radiance or emanation.  The knowing knows itself directly; the knowing knows it is emptiness; the knowing knows radiance as itself. Again, none of this involves a knower of any kind. We discuss these three aspects separately, but in fact they are a unity and are indivisible.

Astus wrote:
Since the beginning Buddhism has the six consciousnesses and eighteen areas of experience, among them the mental consciousness and the area of mental phenomena. Thus seeing an apple is an eye-consciousness where one already has awareness of that appearance, and generating another layer of recognising that one is aware of seeing an apple is mental consciousness. In terms of the aggregates seeing an apple is form, calling it an apple is perception, and knowing about both is consciousness. All of the eighteen areas and five aggregates work together without a problem.

In the internalised trikaya model, as you said, the three are explained separately but they are not actually three different things. There are a number of ways to explain that. The simplest is the statement of the third "kaya" that emptiness and clarity are inseparable; here it is understood that clarity includes all appearances, it is dependent origination. When clarity is meant only as awareness and the nirmanakaya as phenomena, one can add the fourth body to confirm their inseparability. It is also possible to turn to a Huayan explanation where there are 10 bodies, that is, each body includes the other two making nine and all of them together to arrive at ten. So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
conebeckham said:
This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha?  Or is it a mistaken experience?

Astus wrote:
As in my response above, I don't separate concepts and experience that strongly. Thoughts are parts of our everyday experience. One can taste honey, smell it, see it, touch it, and also name it and imagine it. Wisdom is seeing the nature of experience (mind, appearances, etc.), and it is readily apparent that experience is impermanent, dependently originated, empty, if looked at in the right way. At the same time, when there is mistaking this or that experience for some ultimate reality, truly abiding, permanent entity, attachment, suffering and habits occur. Even if that experience is assumed to be nirvana, the nature of mind, or any other lofty concept.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
When you said ealier: There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty, does this pertain to "a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea"?

Astus wrote:
As Cone replied already, yes. Whatever is said here is always and inevitably a conceptual creation. One of the main aspects of the teachings on emptiness is to realise this fact, that concepts are concepts and not truths. Those who believe that one should therefore get rid of concepts still assumes that thoughts are somehow real and they are a hindrance. The only hindrance is the idea that concepts are more than concepts. Without attachment there are neither grasping nor rejecting of thoughts and appearances, they are simply dependent appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
I am just wondering, but how does one personally know "there is just experience"? Of course we all know that anyone can imagine such as state but what the imagination concocts doesn't mean it is either real or attainable.

Astus wrote:
If there is something that is not an experience you don't experience it, consequently you don't know anything about it. What is not an experience is nothing more than a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
so Shakyamuni did put a Permanent end to greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened correct??
so the "cause" was permanently put to an end correct?
is Enlightenment Permanent or can i slip back into Samsaric ways?

Astus wrote:
Of course, it is a permanent end of afflictions and there is no return. That's why it is also called, among other names, the Deathless.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
Just to confirm: you take the position that self-reflexive knowing is not possible (the knowing quality of the mind can't know itself in a direct, nondual way)?

Astus wrote:
Mind is itself knowing. Knowing is the essential quality of mind and a mind without awareness is not mind at all. There is no mental phenomena that could be without consciousness. Therefore, to say that "knowing knows itself" is redundant and unnecessary, as there is no mental phenomena without awareness, but also there is no fixed phenomena as "knowing itself" that should be self-aware.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
you say a permanent Identity makes no sense to you......so did Shakyamuni Permanently get rid of rid greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened or did those traits arise again in his life time???

once a person "becomes" Enlightened do the ever slip back into Samsaric ways,falling back into death and rebirth or are they Permanently Enlightened?

Astus wrote:
When there is no cause for something to occur it does not occur. When the root afflictions/causes are removed then there is no more birth, no more afflictions. That's how not just buddhas don't fall back but even a stream-enterer doesn't fall back from the path.

Son of Buddha said:
but again it all depends on your teacher what sect or tradition you follow and what suttas/sutras you adhere to.

Astus wrote:
I wonder, if you don't mind answering, what tradition do you follow?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
My view is that reflexivity has to be the nature of any form of awareness.  Otherwise, there is no possibility of an awareness being an awareness.  In other words, for awareness to be aware, it has be aware that it is aware.

Astus wrote:
It is aware that it is aware, and it is aware that it is aware it is aware, etc. I think it's rather that appearances and consciousness are inseparable. Whatever is experienced is necessarily perceived. This need for a special self-reflection comes up when awareness is believed to be an entity on its own that shines outside, as if it were like the physical eye, however, I consider it an incorrect metaphor.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm said:
The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

Sherab said:
So the core of the compounded is uncompounded, the core of the born is unborn, the core of the transcended is untranscended?

If yes, then it simply means what is experienced as conditioned is really unconditioned, what is experienced as compounded is really uncompounded, what is experienced as born is really unborn, and what is experience as transcended is really untranscended.  That would simply mean that there is no conditioned, no compounded, no born, no transcended.  And that would simply mean that all that is experienced is nothing but an illusion, a hallucination.

And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well.  Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.

Astus wrote:
You talk of compounded and uncompounded as two different things. Rather, because appearances are compound phenomena they are empty, dependent. Because things are born they are unborn. Unborn means that there is no actual fixed independent essence that is really born of something (or nothing, from itself or another...). If there were such an essence it could not be born, either it was existent or non-existent but change could never happen. That's why emptiness is not different from appearances at all.

There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm said:
There exists a detailed defense of reflexive cognition in Ratnakarashanti's Madhyamakālaṃkara, not to mention the fact that epistemologists like Dharmakirti extensively advance the idea.

Further in secret mantra it is a stated that the wisdom of a tathāgata is a reflexive cognition, not only is it a reflexive cognition but it does not operate through sense organs.

Astus wrote:
I know only Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalamkara and there self-awareness is a conventional phenomanon, and it's his way of explaining consciousness only. Also, self-awareness is not necessarily the same as an independent awareness. so I'm not sure why you brought in the topic of reflexive cognition.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
daverupa said:
Vinnana arises dependent on namarupa, the six sense bases, or the first four khandas, and is nowhere in the Nikayas said to cognize itself.

Additionally, it is not the same vinnana which cognizes sounds and which cognizes sights, so to say that vinnana might cognize itself seems to take it as an existent entity which persists over time, rather than as one aspect of a process.

Astus wrote:
But if you take self-awareness in a different way, not analysed to the smallest particles, it is quite clear that one is conscious of one's thoughts, otherwise the whole mindfulness practice is impossible.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, if you are a follower of Madhyamaka.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how an independent awareness could fit into Theravada or Yogacara either. And, as Cone said, in Kagyu.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
conebeckham said:
Per 3rd Karmapa's Mahamudra prayer, Mind does not "exist." But Mind cannot be said to be "nonexistent."  ... Consciousness at it's most basic level.   A "Knowing."

Astus wrote:
A knowing/awareness cannot be experienced - only assumed - existing in and of itself. There is always something known, there is always a content of awareness. Or rather we should change the words mind/knowing/awareness to experience. Experience cannot be separated from appearances, they are not two different things. Experience may or may not include the duality of subject and object, this is well explained in Yogacara.

Some quotes from Chökyi Nyima's "Song of Karmapa" (highlights by me):

"When we try to examine our mind, what do we find? We do not find a 'thing' which we can think of or perceive. Beyond being an object of investigation it is not existent, and therefore lies beyond the extreme of existence, of eternalism. But on the other hand, we have various sorts of feelings and thoughts, as well as our sense organs, which link objects and consciousness together. Different sense perceptions occur; we see forms, hear sounds and so forth. So because of perception, mind is not nonexistent. In this way the extreme of the mind as a complete nothing is also avoided."
(p65)

"Mind is not existent since even the perfectly enlightened ones, the buddhas who see everything in the three times distinctly and precisely, have not seen it as being a concrete thing of a certain size, color or shape. Therefore we cannot say that the mind exists. But as the basis of samsara and nirvana, in the sense that its nature is to manifest perception, thoughts and feelings, we cannot say it is nonexistent. There is no contradiction or conflict here. That is the view of the Middle Way. Samsara is not understanding the unity of the two truths; nirvana is having the right understanding of this unity. This is the dividing line between samsara and nirvana."
(p66)

"Things appear in that they are perceived, while in fact they are by nature nonexistent. While being empty or nonexistent they still appear, and this occurs without any contradictions or conflict between emptiness and appearance. This nature of things is what we must realize. May we see the vital point of the nature of things, the unity of appearance and emptiness."
(p70)

"Why is the nature of mind not nonexistent? Given the possibility of perception, of experience taking place, we cannot say that it is nonexistent. For example, based on the buddha nature you can prove that the mind is the unity of emptiness and cognizance. Whether we call it 'relative phenomena,' 'the cognizance of enlightened mind' or 'the apparent aspect of things,' still there is something that cannot be denied, and this refers not only to mistaken mind. But when we examine a thought or feeling, there is no concrete thing to find; it has no self nature. We have arrived at emptiness."
(p72)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
Understanding this is not as easy as it looks.

Astus wrote:
A similar series of questions is found at the end of MN 44 where they go through the stages of gradual training ending in nirvana (also see AN 10.58 and AN 4.174). Neither the Vimalakirti Sutra nor the suttas in the Pali Canon talk about an ontological problem but about how the mind works and what is to be practised. You may find clearer instructions in meditation manuals covering vipashyana, for instance those by Zhiyi or Kamalashila.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
So after quarks, it is turtles all the way down.

Astus wrote:
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of good and bad [dharmas]?”
Answer: “The body is their fundamental basis.”
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of the body?”
Answer: “Desire is its fundamental basis.”
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of desire?”
Answer: “False discrimination is its fundamental basis.”
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of false discrimination?”
Answer: “Confused conception is its fundamental basis.”
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of confused conception?”
Answer: “The nonabiding is its fundamental basis.”
[Mañjuśrī] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of nonabiding?”
Answer: “Nonabiding is without any fundamental [basis]. Mañjuśrī, all dharmas are established on the fundamental [basis] of nonabiding.”

(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 7, p 126-127; tr. McRae)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
The problem is that "vertical" dependence demands a starting point.  The question then is: Is this starting point conditioned or unconditioned?  If it is conditioned, then it cannot be the starting point.  If it is unconditioned, how can it be the cause of all the others that is above it?

Astus wrote:
Buddhism never posited a starting point, a fundamental essence, a creator god. And there is no need for that either. There is simply no beginning that could be assumed.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
If emptiness is equated with dependent origination, then if emptiness is unconditioned, dependent origination must also be unconditioned.  If dependent origination is unconditioned, then causality must also be unconditioned.  In other words, there is no cause for causality, which is a contradiction in terms.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means the lack of independent essence. Because things are dependent they are not independent, that is, empty of independent essence. That's how dependent origination and emptiness mean the same. And that lack of independence is indeed unconditioned, it did not come from somewhere nor does it go anywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
The Buddha nature is inconceivable, but not non-existent.

Astus wrote:
If it is inconceivable, how can you make any statement about it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
He does this by dis-identifying with the whole aggregate package; this dis-identification, by any other name, is transcendence.

Astus wrote:
But if after that you identify with a "transcendental self" it is still clinging to the aggregates. If you suppose there is a self beyond the aggregates, that is the very ignorance resulting in suffering. If you believe that nirvana is self, that is, again, a self-view that results in rebirth. And if you think that there was a self that got removed is the extreme view of annihilation, just as a permanent (transcendent or not) self is the view of eternity.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
to be fair Not-Self was treated worse in the Nikayas than "Self"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

people forget the Pali canon is like 20,000 pages long........and many of those  Nikayas say No self is suffering,No self is what leads to suffering,to abandon no self,one sutta even says no self is what belong to Mara("the devil")

Astus wrote:
No-self is not a thing, it is a statement that something is without self, that is, a permanent identity. Self, on the other hand, is the concept that there is a permanent identity. If form, etc. had a permanent identity, it wouldn't change, therefore we couldn't do anything about it, no matter whether it's pleasurable or painful. So, a permanent identity makes zero sense to me. If you say that an unchangeable thing or being is a useful idea, that's your decision.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm said:
Apart from a common agreement that kleṣas are what is responsible for transmigration, I don't see these systems as having much in common in terms of how they present the basis, the path and the result.

Astus wrote:
"Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. " (MN 11)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
How is it that one of Japan's greatly respected Buddhist scholars, who is also an expert in Indian religions, writes:

Astus wrote:
That has no relevance to what is and what is not stated in the Nikayas. Your quote is not even from a commentary, not to mention an actual sutta. If you can find a passage in the Pali Canon where the Buddha states explicitly that there is an eternal self beyond the aggregates, that is something pertinent here. Because I have already shown that he says exactly the opposite in several major suttas in a clear language.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
There is no passage in the nikayas that states, unambiguously, the Buddha "rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates." To assert such is also to assert there is nothing outside or beyond the five murderous aggregates (S.iii.114) which also happen to be Mara the killer (S.iii.189). Neither the Buddha nor his disciples identified their self with the aggregates anymore then they might identify their self with a burning pile of grass, twigs, branches and foliage.

Astus wrote:
Read the note that was linked, read the sutta that states how there are ignorant people who believe that outside the aggregates there is an eternal self. Look at the referred sutta in the note where it states the same again. And there are other works (DN 1, MN 1, MN 11, etc.) pointing out clearly that the Buddha's teaching is different from all the others because it does not assume any self in any way whatsoever. Later tradition also refutes it in many ways, just as it has been done several times by people on this forum.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Buddha rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates, and some assumed this is somehow related to Samkhya ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#fn-8 ). Although I don't think it really matters whether Samkhya was known or not, as their views don't fit the Buddha's teachings anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
As a short reference about previous topics discussing the same idea of "ultimate self in Buddhism":

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=14004
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=13964

And from the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html:
Uninstructed Run-of-the-Mill Person:

"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you."

The Trainee:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you."

The Arahant:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you."

The Tathagata:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and meditation.
Content:
Astus wrote:
The basic requirement is the faith and vow. What practice one uses to maintain that may vary. Honen made a distinction between different forms of nenbutsu and other practices. He propagated the recitation of the name because that's the easiest and simplest. That's not the same as negating or denying the validity of other ways. And outside of the teachings of Honen and his followers the Pure Land way encompasses virtually all forms of Buddhist techniques.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: in practice chan do I need teacher !
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is better to find a Buddhist community and learn from experienced people, teachers and monks. This is especially true if you are new to Buddhism. But Chan is not restricted in any way for anyone.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Does zen believe in pure land of buddhas ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Trikaya doesn't mean three separate bodies. We'd then have three different buddhas for one buddha. The trikaya consists of the dharmakaya and the rupakaya (sambhoga & nirmana). Dharmakaya is the essence (emptiness) and rupakaya is the function (dependent origination), and they are inseparable. You can't actually have one without the others. The trikaya teaching is used to explain different aspects of a buddha, but they don't signify three distinct entities or even emanations. And just as the trikaya is used for external buddhas, they correspond also to the buddha-mind and buddha wisdoms. So it's both personal/subjective and universal/objective at the same time. A lot depends on the context the trikaya teaching is used. Buddha-lands are part of the work of the buddhas, so they come together actually.

Soto Zen - or any Zen school for that matter - does not posit a separate cosmology or "buddhology" different from common East Asian Mahayana. The unique qualities of Soto Zen lie in only certain aspects of wisdom related teachings and their application, plus certain ritualistic and organisational elements.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Well it depends. I mean, if one trains as a translator, of teachings or texts, can contribute to the running of the centre, becomes a qualified teacher, or serves the lay community, there can be very great benefit.

1)If there is any hope whatsoever or I should just throw in the towel, following this as my individual path and accepting that it just isn't going to happen in the West.

2)People are meeting a lot of Western monks and nuns who are not qualified or behave badly, but if the standards improved they might be interested in assisting sincere practitioners who have an affinity for the path of ordination.

Astus wrote:
Religion is not a matter of financial resources. Even poor communities can afford to build magnificent religious monuments and temples, plus support a strong clergy. (And then things turn and they blame the clergy for being greedy and oppressive.) What makes a religion stay alive and thriving is how well various people (classes) accept its message.

As long as Buddhism is either a hobby for relaxation, an inner quest or an intellectual curiosity - i.e. only the liberal-spiritual middle class follows it - it is a somewhat weak trend. And there is a competition for the same areas by other systems (New Age, psychology, other Eastern religions, Christianity). As I see it, Buddhism is gaining strength, many translations are published, a large number of universities have Buddhist Studies among its courses, new monasteries are established, and more and more Westerners become teachers and renunciates. It is only a matter of time to achieve bases among the larger population (or fail and disappear).

I don't see how improving behavioural standards among monastics have any relevance. In every religion there are various problems among its clergy, and Buddhism is not an exception. It is normal to struggle for perfection but that is something never reached. What is to be recognised is that the acceptance and popularity of any system or organisation depends on the social situation. As long as a tradition can change (without losing its identity) it can stay alive, but I have yet to see any example where such a change was a fully conscious event.

I believe that monasticism is important because it provides the ideal environment to train people in the Dharma. Although lay people may be able to reach a similar level of knowledge and experience, only those within the proper social situation can do that. A monastic life is open to both poor and rich. At the same time, the monastic tradition exists because there are people who want to live like that, and there are others who see them as holy individuals. That monastics are fields of merit is not a reason to establish an institution like that but an explanation for why it exists.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
What I am saying is Nichiren claims that Daimoku is the only means for our era. That contradicts your very message about many entrances, at least for our Latter Day of the Law. Same thing with the issue of celibacy and tantric sexual practices. The latter isn't taught by the Buddha and contradicts his emphasis on celibacy.

Astus wrote:
Don't give too much credit to exclusivity and superiority. Every single school says that and almost every Mahayana sutra makes similar claims. It is meant to strengthen one's resolve.

You are either celibate or not, but can't be both at the same time of course. It's a matter of selecting this or that method. And as long as the method leads to liberation, it is taught by the Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
If that is the case, how are we to discern which form of continual revelation is true? Nichiren claims that only the Lotus sutra and the chanting of Daimoku can lead to liberation in this degenerate age of the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra answers your question (e.g.: http://www.fodian.net/world/0262_05.html ). Nichiren followed Saicho, Saicho followed Zhiyi, Zhiyi followed Nagarjuna, Nagarjuna followed Buddha. There is a very clear connection, but also changes according to times and circumstances. That is the bodhisattva's skill in adapting the teachings to the audience.

Nichiren http://nichiren.info/gosho/EarthlyDesires.htm, "To practice only the seven characters of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo may appear limited, yet since this Law is the master of all the Buddhas of the three existences, the teacher of all the bodhisattvas in the ten directions, and the guide that enables all living beings to attain the Buddha way, its practice is incomparably profound."

So, if you approach from the teachings of Nichiren, you find the Buddhadharma in the Daimoku. If you go from the teachings of Shinran, you find it through the Nenbutsu. There are many entrances, many teachings. But they are not unrelated, they don't come from nowhere, and every Buddhist teacher establishes the teachings on the words and realisation of Shakyamuni Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: what is the Nirvana in zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Please see this thread about the Mahayana understanding of nirvana (including Zen) : http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=167186. That's how non-abidance is the essential path and goal of Zen, both sudden enlightenment and the path of the bodhisattva.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
No, Buddha Nature is the essence of mind, before subject and object. It can never be taken as an object of consciousness anymore than the retina of your eye can see itself.

Astus wrote:
Experience that is not divided into subject and object is simply just experience itself, and it is always changing. But if I consider you likening it to the eye, it sounds more like an ultimate subject rather than lack of duality.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
So the world is flat until it is discovered to be round? What changes? Does the world change or does the unawareness become aware to what actually is?

Astus wrote:
Your argument stands only when you presume there are objects independent of the mind, and you claim that buddha-nature is an external independent object to be discovered. But then, the idea that there are independent objects is only an inference and not experience. Is not enlightenment an experience?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
Or you can conclude that you are presently unaware of it, that it is something beyond your imagination, as the teachings suggest.

Astus wrote:
If I am unaware of it now but can become aware of it later it cannot be permanent. If something is permanent either one is always aware of it or never, otherwise there is change and so impermanence.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
The experience of your own Buddha Nature after the adventitious defilements are removed. Retroactively it is then seen as having always been present, therefore permanent.

Astus wrote:
Yes, I asked about the experience of enlightenment you mentioned. Is the answer that it is always present? Because then I can only conclude that it simply does not exist. Unless you mean something nominal, like for instance although the water itself changes we call it the same river every day. But then it is not really an experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
Enlightenment is not a paradigm, attitude, or concept. It is an experience.

Astus wrote:
Could you define that experience, describe it?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 14th, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
smcj said:
You are in effect saying that the actual experience of enlightenment is a fiction.

Astus wrote:
How so? I say one can really be free from ignorance, clinging and all the causes of suffering. Otherwise I'd deny the very meaning of the Buddha's teaching.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
undefineable said:
Is this really meant to be taken literally

Astus wrote:
"What is space (akasa)? It is the absence of matter (rupa), because the latter permits the manifestation of all kinds of activities." (Abhidharmasamuccaya 1.1.1, p 24)

undefineable said:
is this really always necessary?

Astus wrote:
No. Not everything in Buddhism has to do specifically with the path, and not everything regarding the path is a necessary element. Buddhist teachings also talk about mistaken ideas and wrong goals.

undefineable said:
Which is distinct from nothing, I take it.

Astus wrote:
As I said, there are various definitions, and many misunderstandings. For instance, saying that empty awareness is buddha-nature is easy to be mistaken for a soul, while calling it no mind or empty mind is easily misunderstood as unconsciousness. What both means, however, is that all mental phenomena are without essence, thus one can let them come and let them go, they self-liberate.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
undefineable said:
give me the impression that you see 'yogic direct perception' is an inferior state, and that we should simply 'achieve' literal cessations (rather than transcendence) of mental activity. I've also read the translated term 'space' as referring to the nature of mind rather than to a 'lack of a physical object', as you put it.

Astus wrote:
Yogic perception is a term used in Pramana for meditative experience, it is not an inferior state, just a category of direct sensing. Regarding the cessations and space, I was simply using the Yogacara categories of the unconditioned dharmas as you can find them in Vasubandhu's Treatise on One Hundred Dharmas and Asanga's Abhidharmasamuccaya. Space here is not a metaphor for emptiness or the nature of mind, it is simply empty expanse in its ordinary sense. Also, among the different types of cessations, analysed cessation (pratisamkhya-nirodha) corresponds to the end of defilements as achieved via insight (vipasyana), and it is not the total end of all experience. The coma-like state you mentioned would be nirodha-samapatti (attainment of cessation, the 9th dhyana) or asamjni-samapatti (thoughtless attainment) and both are among the conditioned dharmas. Involuntary cessation of something is the unanalysed cessation (apratisamkhya-nirodha) and that covers cases like the involuntary loss of consciousness because of fainting or deep sleep, and other types of endings in causal continua.

undefineable said:
I can't find where you resolve the apparent contradiction and explain where you find a 'middle way'

Astus wrote:
There is no contradiction. Buddha-nature has various definitions. In the above post I used it in the sense of the original nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
undefineable said:
I guess you're saying that 'permanent dharmas' refers to characteristics of reality rather than to states of mind in and of themselves. Is it not the case, though, that such dharmas can atleast be 'experienced' indirectly as a deep-seated change in one's way of seeing things (which one might of course nonetheless 'back-slide' from up to a point), rather than via some soupy altered state of consciousness?

Astus wrote:
In Yogacara there is nothing outside mind, i.e. nothing outside the realm of experience. Space is simply the lack of a physical object. Cessations are various ends of causal continua. Suchness is the fact that there is no self. Therefore these are not experiences per se, but the lack of certain factors in experience. This corresponds to the usual explanation about buddha-nature that one only has to remove the adventitious stains in order to recover it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
jeeprs said:
So this level of perception is beyond 'experience' in the sense we generally understand the term, which is the experience of the natural man in the world. That is why the Buddha understands such things as the factors that cause beings to be reborn, and which drive the whole process of birth and death; and why he is said to be 'lokkutara', 'world-transcending'.

Astus wrote:
Yogic direct perception (yogipratyaksa) is still a form of experience, something that occurs and passes, that depends on causes and conditions. A definition from Mipham's Blazing Lights of the Sun and Moon (p 41):
"unconfused knowledge free from conceptualization arising in dependence on the dominant condition of the yogas of shamatha and vipashyana."
Also (p 45):
"By the yogin's meditating well in accord with the precepts taught by the guru, the ultimate meaning of egolessness, the two emptinesses, and three and countless kinds are seen. Moreover, in a single atom as many buddha fields as there are atoms, and limitless pure phenomenal worlds, the mandalas of countless buddhas, are seen and so forth. Clearly experiencing its own sphere, this is yogic direct perception."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
jeeprs said:
realization is a different thing to experience, as per the quotation

Astus wrote:
Nevertheless, experience is something that happens in one of the six sensory gates. Even if we talk about the subtlest mental phenomena, they are impermanent. There is no seventh sensory gate beyond the six. And if any of them were permanent we would experience it constantly.

jeeprs said:
pertain to reality, not to experience

Astus wrote:
A reality beyond experience cannot be sensed or known, therefore it is nothing but speculation.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
Astus wrote:
The teaching of the Buddha has its own frame of reference, and that is the four noble truths. The teachings are meant to help one become free from suffering. The three universal characteristics (impermanence, suffering, no self) are the topics to realise to reach the three gates of liberation (emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness). The characteristics are to be contemplated in our personal realm of experience (six senses). If there were anything permanent in our experience we would be experiencing it all the time. Since there is no such experience we can confirm that all of them are impermanent. We might theorise that there is something permanent outside of our experience, however, that is only a concept, an impermanent thought, and even if there were such a thing it'd have no relevance to us.

In Yogacara they count six unconditioned dharmas. Space, analysed cessation, non-analysed cessation, motionless cessation, cessation of feeling and perception, suchness. As unconditioned they are permanent. At least they would be permanent if any of them meant a specific experience, instead of the lack of experience or a theoretical generalisation that they actually signify. In the same category we could put for instance impermanence itself, and impermanence is permanent, just like emptiness and no self. But again, they are simply conceptual explanations and not experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Not Everything is Impermanent
Content:
Astus wrote:
The word in http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/lesson/pali/reading/gatha5.htm is http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:3070.pali, it means both ancient and eternal.

We could say that the laws of mathematics is eternal. Or the rules of chess. Or the laws of physics. Thus we have a quite old philosophical question here, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals.

From a Buddhist point of view, since we don't experience constantly anything, not even universal laws, it is not permanent. Such laws exist for us only as thoughts and nothing more. It should be noted that this is an epistemological answer to the question of a religious tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
LastLegend said:
It is true that the original question asked for a historical question. Therefore, we are answering in the context of that. But how much do we know to pass on such information as something accurate or who influenced who?

Astus wrote:
If knowledge of the subject is denied it cannot be asserted whether any tradition borrowed from any other, and the validity of the question is removed. If historical knowledge is possible, then there are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method to investigate past events.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
jeeprs said:
The ground of existence is not the object of negation, and is not what is being negated. The idea that beings exist 'in themselves' is what is being negated. But the dharmadhātu cannot be negated, because without it nothing would exist.

Astus wrote:
If by dharmadhatu you mean a universal substance upholding all existence, it is negated by the same arguments that refute a creator god or the similar Taoist ideas. If dharmadhatu stands for emptiness and therefore dependent origination, it is not a shared substratum but simply interdependence of all phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
I suppose a generalized path to inuiting Truth is through faith, self-mastery, detachment, seeing the 5 aggregates as anatta, meditation (be it Zazen, Vipassana, or some tantric sadhana in Vajrayana), transcending concepts, looking inward/self-inquiry etc.

Astus wrote:
Could you be more specific? There are step by step instructions on realising the emptiness of self and phenomena, like Chengguan's https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/translations/examination-of-the-five-aggregates, and other, more extensive works. Is there one to guide to the realisation of self?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
jeeprs said:
So the answer as to whether there is self or not is neither yes nor no.
But large numbers of people seem to say that the answer was 'no'.

Astus wrote:
The sutta actually says that the "bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" There was no self any time, it does not disappear either, and that's the difference between no-self and nihilism, as already shown in what I quoted from Tsongkhapa before.

jeeprs said:
So what is 'the ground of existence'? What is it that is lacking? To have theories about that is to engage in speculation.

Astus wrote:
Actually, it is not speculation, it is defining the object of negation. And that object is the idea of independent existence, the concept that something exists on its own as it is. I say it is a concept because nobody ever experiences (or can experience) such a thing. And calling it a "non-thing" is simply saying that it doesn't exist at all and again it cannot be perceived in any way.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is the path, the method to realise that self you say is taught in Buddhism? What meditation shows it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Our true nature is impermanent, without a self, empty, and merely the 5 skandhas? Sounds like nihilism and materialism more than a spiritual doctrine of Awakening to me. Aside from that, the 5 skandhas are all immanent and yet Buddhism often speaks of "transcendent wisdom." What is this wisdom that is transcendent if all that exists is the 5 skandhas?

Astus wrote:
The idea that there is a self (permanent being) inside or outside the five aggregates has never been accepted in Buddhism. Once the Vatsiputriyas/Pudgalavadins tried to walk around this by saying that the "person" (pudgala) is neither inside nor outside, and they have been regularly refuted. See chapter 9 of the Abhidharmakosabhasyam for a series of arguments against them. From the beginning of that chapter:

"Is there any liberation outside of Buddhism?
No, there is not.
What is the reason for this?
There is no liberation outside of this teaching, because other doctrines are corrupted by a false conception of a soul. The word as other doctrines conceive it is not a metaphoric expression for a series of skandhas. By the power of their belief in this soul as a substantial entity, there arises clinging to the soul, the defilements are generated, and liberation is impossible.
How do we know that the word "soul" is only a designation for a series of skandhas, and that no soul exists in and of itself? We know this because no proof establishes the existence of a soul apart from the skandhas, no proof by direct perception, nor any proof from inference. If the soul were a real entity, separate like other entities, it would be attained (i.e., known) either by direct perception as are the objets of the five sense consciousnesses and the objects of mental consciousness, or by inference, as are the five indriyas.
...
There is neither direct perception nor inference of a soul independent of the skandhas. We know then that a real soul does not exist."

Similar arguments are found in Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise (ch 18) or in Xuanzang's Cheng Weishi Lun (ch 1), just to name two fundamental Mahayana works. From the Zen side:

“There is a type of person (who holds that) there is a bright and intelligent nature that reasons and knows, that sees and hears, and is a lord over the corporeal field of the five skandhas. If one is like this and is an excellent teacher, one cheats people greatly. Do you know this? Now I ask you, ‘If you acknowledge this bright intelligence as your true reality, why when you are profoundly asleep are you still not bright and intelligent? If when you are deeply asleep you are not so (bright and intelligent), you are (mistakenly) recognizing a bandit as one’s own offspring, which is the root of birth and death and the conditional production of delusion.’” (Xuansha Shibei, Jingde Chuandeng Lu 18, T51n2076_p0345a18-24, tr. from http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?board=Dharma_Talks&y_number=51&nnew=1 )

Or look at Dogen's writing on http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/intro.html. From the introduction by Carl Bielefeldt:

"In his opening remarks, Dōgen dismisses several of the most common views: that the buddha nature is the potential to become a buddha, that it is the activity of cognition within us, or that it is a universal self pervading the world. Rather, he says, the buddha nature is existence itself — not an abstract principle of being, but the actual occurrence of things, or, as he puts it simply at the end of his essay, “fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles.”"

And there's also Sallie B. King's book on the Treatise on https://books.google.hu/books?id=VHQPxMqmHNIC, about which there was some https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=2416 already.

Guifeng Zongmi, whose teachings are prominent in Jinul's Zen, also gives us a short analysis of the aggregates (Chan Prolegomenon in "Zongmi on Chan", p 126):

"There are no other dharmas beyond these, but, upon analysis, a self cannot be apprehended in any of them. Thus, one awakens to the realization that these [types of] body and mind are merely conditions, with the characteristic of seeming concord, but were never one substance. They are characterized as an apparent selfand others, but there never existed a self and others."

And regarding the nature of mind as taught in Zen (p 88):

Therefore, thought of the unreal from the outset is calmed, and sense objects from the outset are void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. This calm Knowing of voidness and calm is precisely the mind of voidness and calm that Bodhidharma formerly transmitted.
...
Because of delusion about this Knowing there arises the characteristic of a self. When one calculates self and mine, love and hatred spontaneously arise. According to the mind of love or hatred, one does good or bad, and, as retribution for this good or bad, is reborn in one of the six rebirth paths, life after life, birth after birth, cyclically, without end. If you find a good friend to show you [the path], you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices. With respect to understanding, it is to see that all characteristics are non-characteristics. With respect to practice, it is called the practice of nonpractice.

Both Zongmi and Jinul teaches no mindfulness/no thought as the essential path of Zen, just as it was taught in the Platform Sutra and later by Dogen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Question: Other Power & Cleaning Karma
Content:
Nosta said:
Do you interpretate that way too?

Astus wrote:
There are various ways Buddhism is taught and explained. See: http://www.tientai.net/glossary/4siddhanta.htm. The above one falls into the category of "worldly method".


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
jeeprs said:
It is often said that the idea of dharmakaya is the nearest equivalent to the God idea. I don't think it's true, because it is not something along the lines of a personal deity. But there are many parallels between the Dharmakaya and the God of the mystics.

Astus wrote:
"All of the non-Buddhist paths are attached to the view of a self. If it was actually the case that a self existed, then it ought to fall into one or the other of two categories. Either it is characterized by destructibility or else it is characterized by indestructibility. If it is characterized by destructibility, then it ought to be something like a cow hide. If it is characterized by indestructibility, then it ought to be comparable to empty space. In the case of both of these positions, they are both such as would involve no offense entailed in killing and would involve no merit in refraining from killing.
If it were like empty space, then neither rain nor dew would be able to moisten it and neither wind nor heat would be able to dry it out. If this were the case, then it would fall into the category of something which is permanent. If it were permanent, then suffering would be unable to torment it and happiness would be unable to please it. If it thus was something which did not experience suffering or happiness, then it ought not to be concerned with avoiding evil and striving to perform deeds which generate merit.
If it was comparable to a cow hide, then it would be such as might be destroyed by wind and rain. If it was destructible, then it would fall into the category of something which is impermanent. If it were impermanent, then there could be neither [future punishments resulting from] offenses nor [future blessings resulting from] engaging in meritorious karmic deeds.
If in fact the discourse of the non-Buddhist traditions corresponds to these characterizations, then what would be the point in having the teaching that refraining from killing is karmically meritorious and that engaging in killing constitutes a karmic offense?"
...
"[The beliefs of] you and other non-Buddhists like you are so extremely different from the Buddha’s Dharma as to be as far apart as heaven and earth. Your dharmas and that of other non-Buddhists like you is a place for the production of afflictions. In the case of the Dharma of the Buddha, it is a place for the doing away with afflictions. This constitutes a great difference."
( http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-15.pdf )

jeeprs said:
But if one thinks that emptiness is a non-entity, that is also a wrong view.

Astus wrote:
"Thus because the view of existence and nonexistence of entities will have many faults, therefore that “lack of intrinsic nature of entities” is the vision of reality; it is the middle path; and just that is the attainment of ultimate reality (paramartha)."
(Buddhapalita's commentary to MMK chapter 15, tr. William L. Ames, "Buddhapalita's Exposition of Madhyamaka" in "Journal of Indian Philosophy 14 (1986), p 322)

"For us, there is no view of refication or nihilism based on essence, because we do not maintain that entities exist essentially. Suppose one charged, “Although you do not adopt the view of reification, you do adopt the view of nihilism!” We would reply that if one first maintained that the object of annihilation exists essentially and then later maintained that it does not exist, one would thereby repudiate the necessity of the eternal existence of that which exists essentially, and thus would fall into nihilism. But to say that that which never existed essentially in the first place does not exist is not deprecation, and therefore is not nihilism."
(Tsongkhapa's commentary to MMK 15, in "Ocean of Reasoning", p 325)

jeeprs said:
Actually, giving rise to a single thought, one falls into heterodox paths.
One has to think in order to write.

Astus wrote:
Thoughts are not eliminated or stopped. Not giving rise to means not attaching to, not having a view that there is an essence of a thought.

"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. Just purify the fundamental mind, causing the six consciousnesses to emerge from the six [sensory] gates, [causing one to be] without defilement or heterogeneity within the six types of sensory data (literally, the “six dusts”), autonomous in the coming and going [of mental phenomena], one’s penetrating function without stagnation. This is the samādhi of prajñā, the autonomous emancipation. This is called the practice of nonthought.
If one does not think of the hundred things in order to cause thought to be eradicated, this is bondage within the Dharma. This is called an extreme view."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, tr. McRae, p 33-34)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Huang Po said:
The Dharmakaya, from ancient times until today, together with the Buddhas and Ancestors, is One.

Astus wrote:
"If Dharma students wish to know the key to successful cultivation, they should know that it is the mind that dwells on nothing. Emptiness is the Buddha's Dharmakaya, just as the Dharmakaya is emptiness. People's usual understanding is that the Dharmakaya pervades emptiness, and that it is contained in emptiness. However, this is erroneous, for we should understand that the Dharmakaya is emptiness and that emptiness is the Dharmakaya.
If one thinks that emptiness is an entity and that this emptiness is separate from the Dharmakaya or that there is a Dharmakaya outside of emptiness, one is holding a wrong view. In the complete absence of views about emptiness, the true Dharmakaya appears. Emptiness and Dharmakaya are not different. Sentient beings and Buddhas are not different. Birth and death and Nirvana are not different. Klesa and Bodhi are not different."
(Chung-Ling Record in "The Dharma of Mind Transmission", tr. Lok To)

Also from Huangbo:

"Worldly and holy are very clearly explained in the Three Vehicles. You do not understand and grasp them as objects. Wouldn't it be incorrect to think of emptiness as really existing? Merely wipe out the worldly-and-holy view. There is no Buddha outside of the Mind. The Patriarch came from the West solely to point out that people's minds are Buddha. You do not recognize this and actively pursue the Buddha. You do not recognize this and actively pursue the Buddha outside, thus deluding your own mind. For this reason, I talk about the Mind as Buddha. Actually, giving rise to a single thought, one falls into heterodox paths. Since time without beginning, there is no differentiation or discrimination, Void-ness is the Unconditioned Awakening."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 5:31 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Perhaps Suzuki is wrong about his claims, I wouldn't know because I never read him, but I personally never understood the idea of views being outdated. Why is the 2013 understanding of Zen history and religion the correct one? If in the future scholars modify the current understanding, will we then be outdated? Is the Buddha outdated?

Astus wrote:
Certain philosophical and religious ideas are theoretically timeless as they are not bound to material evidence, nevertheless, they can change too by time. Suzuki's works are outdated in terms of their scholarly perspective, what they say about the history and development of Zen, and how it generalises his interpretation of Zen to all forms of Zen. And yes, even the current view of the history of Zen can expire if new sources and studies appear. Translations also require refreshment and corrections for several reasons.

Vidyaraja said:
Zen also doesn't say we are the human body with its thoughts, memories, expectations, etc. Zen and Buddhism in general is a doctrine of awakening to our true nature/the Absolute, not humanism. Buddha himself claimed the 5 skandhas to be anatta, and what else comprises the human organism but the 5 skandhas?

If Zen (and Buddhism by extension) doesn't each an absolute Buddha-Nature or One Mind or Universal Ground Gnosis, which of course is not a "thing", what does it teach? What is beyond the 5 skandhas that are anatta, anicca, and dukkha?

Astus wrote:
The five aggregates are indeed impermanent, not self and empty. That is their true nature. That is our true nature. But if you look for something beyond that, a universal essence, that's "adding a head on top of your head". Look at the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra - the two most prominent scriptures used in Zen - do they talk about anything like an absolute? And there's the Platform Sutra, right after the story of Huineng it gives an explanation of Mahaprajnaparamita, shows how the nature of the mind is empty, functioning and includes everything, that is, one should not block the senses but be aware without attachment. That is no-thought, the essential path of Zen, and no different from what are taught in the sutras.

If you look into Zongmi's criticism of Taoism ( http://www.slashdocs.com/ixrhyn/on-human-origins.html ), it is exactly this idea of a fundamental source and basis of everything that he refutes as nonsense. Similar arguments exist in both Madhyamaka and Yogacara works.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
While I am personally not convinced, there must be some basis or reason for multiple figures to make these claims.

Astus wrote:
The question is where and why were Taoism and Zen connected by certain individuals. Without binging in actual quotes and references this can't really be answered. As for Zen itself, the tradition makes no connection to Taoism, Taoist teachers or teachings, but recognises only Buddhist scriptures and doctrines.

Vidyaraja said:
I haven't read much of Suzuki, but why is he biased and outdated?

Astus wrote:
He represented a specific interpretation of Zen defined by Japanese Rinzai rhetoric and modern Romantic/Theosophist/New Age ideas. That's why it is biased. And it is outdated because since then scholars have extensively reviewed and modified the understanding of Zen history and religion.

Vidyaraja said:
Huang Po also speaks of the Buddha-Nature or Mind being the source substance of all phenomena, which of course includes all that is merely human. Aside from that, if Zen is indeed a form of Buddhism, did not the Buddha teach that skandhas which comprise the human is anatta or "not myself"? What is merely human is denied in Buddhism as far as I can tell, whereas Buddha-Nature/Pure Mind is all there is.

Astus wrote:
It seems to me you are misinterpreting Zen as some sort of monism. Zen doesn't teach anything like a supreme absolute thing nor does it deny ordinary phenomena. Sure, certain translations and terms can be misleading. But, first of all, Zen does not discuss Buddhist doctrine, it talks about practice. So if you gain some sort of view from reading Zen texts, that's not what they were written for. It is very important to clarify the basic teachings of Mahayana before attempting to understand Zen, otherwise one fails to see the context and inevitably misconstrues the whole thing. If you don't know where to start with Mahayana, I recommend Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara. Although it was never popular in East Asia, it is still a great summary. But if you want to stay within the Chinese Buddhism area, go through the works translated by Ven. Dharmamitra: http://kalavinka.org/


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Question: Other Power & Cleaning Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
Repentance is among the daily practices in both Chinese Buddhism and Jodo Shu.

An example of a Chinese practice: http://kongmu.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/88-buddhas/.

And this is from the http://english.jodoshuna.org/prayer/daily-prayer/:
San Ge-ge
In the presence of Buddhas, we repent of harmful karmas we accumulated from the past to present.

GA SHAKU SHO ZO SHO AKU GO
KAI YU MU SHI TON JIN CHI
JU SHIN GO I SHI SHO SHO
I- SSAI GA KON KAI SAN GE

All harmful karmas I have ever accumulated from the past are caused by my wrong speech, conduct and mind, that are derived from my greed, anger and ignorance. I now repent of all of them.
And the same in different translation from http://www.jsri.jp/English//otsutome/otsutome.html:
SANGE-GE
(Confession)
GA SHAKU SHO ZO SHO AKU GO
KAI YU MU SHI TON JIN CHI
JU SHIN GO I SHI SHO SHO
I-SSAI GA KON KAI SAN GE

All the evil Karma ever accumulated by me in the past, which I realize is derived
from my inherent greed, anger, and ignorance.
Whatsoever born of my body, words, and thoughts, I now make full confession of them wholeheartedly to the everlasting Compassion of Amida Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Question: Other Power & Cleaning Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
As you said, it is impossible in Buddhism for anyone to meddle with another person's karma. What makes all the difference is your attitude and your practice. Even the smallest thought can result in aeons of trouble or bliss. That way being mindful of a buddha is a positive influence on what and how you experience. So even if something bad befalls you, you could say that without the influence of a buddha/bodhisattva, it would have been much worse.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
plwk said:
Let's face it Astus. In the Pure Land tradition, teachers are a mere reference point and not the main point.

Astus wrote:
I see it the other way around. Without teachers developing an interpretation there is no Pure Land tradition. First of all, there are more than three sutras mentioning Amitabha, so selecting those three as the primary source is already a traditional choice and not something said by the Buddha. Reciting the name, that's not taught in any of the three sutras, but again developed in China. The sutras can be interpreted in many ways. In Buddhism it is perfectly valid and acceptable to create one's own interpretation, maybe even start a new school if one can gather enough followers. I'm not saying it is some sort of heresy or something bad, especially when one does not come up with non-Buddhist views like a creator God and an eternal soul but stays within the boundaries of the four seals.

To follow up on your Christian example, it took a number of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council to establish a generally accepted interpretation. Even defining what books are canonical took time and consensus. And there were and are Christian churches who don't agree with any of that. Luther may have believed that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura, but he was already building on a 1500 years old tradition, and in fact accepted many of the traditional interpretations (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology ).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
plwk said:
During the time of Sakyamuni or Amitabha Buddha, where were Shan Dao and Honen? When Shan Dao and Honen read the Sutras, who do they refer to?

Astus wrote:
Honen's presentation of the Pure Land teaching is based on the sutras. To say otherwise is to reject him as a Buddhist teacher. Honen emphasised what is the bear minimum to attain birth, something that is still achievable by ordinary humans. That's what his process of selecting the nembutsu of the Primal Vow about. He didn't say that all the other practices are wrong, meaningless or don't exist.

While he remained a monastic till the end of his life, he didn't require of everyone else to do the same. He recited the name tens of thousands of times a day and regularly went to retreats, but he said that a single utterance suffices. He was a highly educated Buddhist master, and he said that the only thing needed is the nembutsu and one doesn't have to know what even the Three Minds are.

Honen's approach is like the not so bright student who wants to get over his university years and it is enough if he can pass all the exams. Sure, there are a few top students with the best grades and honours and whatnot. And there are many who can just survive. Honen included everyone in his teachings from the imperial court and elite monastics to the prostitutes and fishermen. For instance, even today you can't learn all the esoteric practices of Shingon unless you are ordained (and speak Japanese). But you can recite Namu Amida Butsu no matter who you are or what you know and attain buddhahood. Wasn't that the intention of the Buddha, to give a path that liberates all beings?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
LastLegend said:
I sense that there is a general consensus among Western scholars to downplay the significance of Taoism or Tao as a religion. Maybe I am wrong?

Astus wrote:
I'd say it's rather the opposite, that Taoism was and is a religion and not a pure philosophy. See the links in my previous post.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Though in the case of Taoism at least, Laozi and Zhuangzi were taken to be the major texts. Perhaps the way of uncovering what influences these indigenous faiths left is through comparing and contrasting them to Indian Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
"The Daode jing and Zhuangzi are the only Daoist texts that matter because they are the “essence” and “original teachings” of Daoism"
Response:
"There is no principal Daoist scripture. Although the Daode jing is probably the most central and influential scripture in Daoist history, different Daoist adherents, communities and movements revere different scriptures. The primary textual collection in the Daoist tradition is called the Daozang 道藏 (Daoist Canon). It is an open textual collection, with new additions having been made throughout Daoist history. The first version was compiled in the fifth century CE. The received version was compiled in the fifteenth century, with a seventeenth century supplement. It consists of roughly 1,400 texts, texts that come from every major period and movement of Daoist history. "
( http://www.daoistcenter.org/Daoism_Misconceptions.pdf )

Regarding Taoism this article is strongly recommended (in PDF): http://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/kirkland/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.kirkland/files/TENN97.pdf.

And here find Guifeng Zongmi's criticism and at the same time inclusion of both Taoism and Confucianism: http://www.slashdocs.com/ixrhyn/on-human-origins.html.

Also see this post I made in a similar thread last year: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=110688#p110688

Vidyaraja said:
I would have thought Taoism would have considering both are spiritual systems with ascetic practitioners and would have thought Confucianism would have been more for informing ethics. DT Suzuki apparently said

Astus wrote:
Confucianism was the state philosophy most of the time, Confucian works were studied by every educated person and Confucian ethics and values were the social standard. The majority of outstanding and influential Buddhists were from the higher classes (aristocracy, literati), and thus were raised on Confucian teachings. While mountain hermits may have shared practices and ideas with each other to the point that distinguishing sources was nearly impossible, they were not the people who defined the mainstream doctrines or composed works on anything even if they could write at all.

DT Suzuki, well, his writings are mostly biased and fairly outdated.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
Astus wrote:
plwk,

Yes, as you say, there are various forms of Pure Land practice. Honen is kind of a special case because of his process of selecting ( http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHINGS/senchaku/process.html ) the Rightly Established Practice as the recitation of the name. And the form of nembutsu used is just the recitation and nothing more ( http://www.jsri.jp/English/Pureland/DOCTRINE/nembutsu.htm ). He did not reject other teachings. He said that for ordinary beings in this age the simple recitation is the best choice to attain buddhahood. And while recitation has innumerable merits, it doesn't follow that it makes someone a better person in this life. It may, but it's not necessary nor important.

Outside of Honen's teachings, the practice of remembrance and recitation has many uses. Already in Daoxin's (fourth Chan patriarch) teaching there are references to the Meditation Sutra and how buddha-mindfulness is identical to the buddha-mind, something that in the later tradition became the True Mark Buddha Remembrance. And this only shows how in Chinese Buddhism it is very misleading to talk of any distinct schools like Pure Land and Chan. In Tibetan Buddhism they also recommend meditation on Amitabha with the aim of attaining birth in Sukhavati, but nobody says there is a special Tibetan Pure Land school. Really, it was only Honen who rejected everything else in favour of focusing only on attaining birth with nembutsu.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
It seems at least certain Zen masters saw some value or connection between Zen and Tao, such as Takuan Soho's commentary on the Tao Te Ching, but what I think is questionable is that Zen is basically Taoism in Buddhist garb.

Though I suppose, again, considering Buddhism being influenced by Bon in Tibet or incorporating Shintoism in Japan, there is a likelihood of influence of Taoism in Chan but to what extent I am unaware.

Astus wrote:
These are inevitably huge generalisations that Taoism, Shinto and Bon influenced Buddhism here and there. Thing is, none of those three religions had any fixed canon or doctrine before Buddhism appeared. All of them were native beliefs. I'd say Confucianism had a greater impact on forming Chinese Buddhism than Taoism, although for some reason people tend to forget about that. There are some Buddhist commentaries on "Taoist" works like the Yijing, and there were some who propagated the unity of the three major Chinese traditions. Just as today you find people who believe that Christianity and Buddhism, or science and Buddhism, are somehow compatible or even one.

Zen perfectly fits into the Buddhist teachings and I have yet to see those peculiarly Taoist traits in it. What Zen adopted from the Chinese culture is the idea of the lineage of transmission, and it is based on the imperial succession. There are certain literary styles used in Zen that are also specifically Chinese. Oh, and again, the language they used was Chinese. Now, as we speak English, if someone analysed it, they could say that Western Buddhism got mixed with Christianity, materialism, phenomenology, utilitarianism, and probably a number of other thoughts, not to mention the pervasive romanticism and colonialism-orientalism in Western Buddhist discourse. And almost forgot, the purist idea of an "Original Buddhism".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
LastLegend said:
While Tao or Taoism or whatever it may be called are Chinese folklore and native beliefs, I do believe the principle of yin and yang are practical and true to my experience. It is the foundation of Chinese medicine. For example, I can make a tea from red brown rice and aduzki red bean that can be as strong as viagra. No ingredients added-just red brown rice and aduzki red bean. I personally don't take the Tao lightly, and I am of the opinion that eating is a big part of the spiritual path. Not just being any vegetarian but being a vegetarian by applying yin and yang principle is the way to go, I feel.

Astus wrote:
If I take an Aspirin or some other modern medicine it doesn't make Western Buddhism a mixture of European philosophy and Indian ideas. When I distinguished between regulated Taoist doctrines and general beliefs I meant that while Chinese Buddhism - and not just Zen - adapted and absorbed the culture, starting with using Chinese language, it does not mean accepting ideas that contradict the Dharma or confusing the Buddha's teachings with those of Zhuangzi, Mengzi or any other Chinese thinker.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 3:50 PM
Title: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
So yeah, what are the relationships between Zen, Indian Buddhism, and Taoism?

Astus wrote:
Zen is a Chinese form of Buddhism developed in China. It is doctrinally and practically a Buddhist teaching.

There isn't really such a thing as "Taoism". There are certain philosophical-religious schools in China that could be called Taoist, and there is just generally the Chinese folklore and native beliefs people may call Taoist. The two are not the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
Arabic  Buddhist said:
" In the Amitabha Sutra, the Buddha further explained that to be reborn in the Western Pure Land, we have to be "good men and good women." The standard for this is the Three Conditions; thus, they are a crucial part of our practice, an integral component of rebirth in the Pure Land.

To achieve this rebirth, we need belief, vows, and practice—leading a moral life and chanting Amituofo mindfully.

...

For example . Do they said THREE CONDITIONS practice is useful just in first Dharma Age . Or they have other obinions ?

Astus wrote:
That's only Ven. Chin Kung's interpretation. It is not written like that in the sutra itself, nor did Honen explain it that way. If you want a different perspective from the Chinese side that is closer to Honen - but still not the same -, I recommend Ven. Yin Kuang.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
plwk said:
If one is sincerely & properly practicing the Nembutsu, the practice of sila should also be naturally forthcoming, no? ... one's obscurations and obstacles becomes purified, hence, sila is no longer an issue for us but a natural consequence and response to the gift of Amida?

Astus wrote:
I have not seen such a connections stated anywhere, especially not Honen. Could you point to some sources here?

I'm also wary of equating other-power with no-self. From the point of view of the Path of Sages, it is neither a practice nor a realisation of emptiness. And from the Pure Land side, if other-power were a way to attain insight into no-self, one would not need to be born in the Pure Land.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
Arabic  Buddhist said:
I have inclination to Shan tao and Honen teaching .
But when I read the The pure land Sutra and I read Buddha Speak About morality practice to be born in pure land . Then I have Doubt about Shan tao and Honen teaching .

So I am Confused .

Astus wrote:
Honen's message is simple and straightforward: "There is no other reason or cause by which we can utterly believe in attaining birth in the Pure Land than the nembutsu itself." ( http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/WRITINGS/ichimai.html )

It doesn't mean that we should act in an immoral way. Against that interpretation Honen spoke explicitly and emphatically. He says that doing good things is what all buddhas taught, but as ordinary beings evil acts are common. It should be clear that he means karmically evil, that is, acts that result in lower birth (see a summary here: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/156.htm ). It is true that some of us can uphold a high moral standard, but most of us fail now and then. But no matter what, the condition of birth in the Pure Land is the nembutsu and nothing else. If you can do good things and avoid the bad ones, by all means do that. But don't be arrogant because of it. And if you find yourself lacking in certain aspects, don't feel down about it, don't be afraid that you lose your chance with Amida. If you can, correct yourself. If not, minimise the harm.

"While believing that even a man guilty of the ten evil deeds and the five deadly sins may be born into the Pure Land, let us, as far as we are concerned, not commit even the smallest sins. If this is true of the wicked, how much more of the good. We ought to continue the practice of the Nembutsu uninterruptedly, in the belief that ten repetitions, or even one, will not be in vain. If this is true of merely one repetition, how much more of many!"
(Honen the Buddhist Saint, p 30)

"Do not be worrying as to whether your evil passions are strong or otherwise, or whether your sins are light or heavy. Only invoke Amida's name with your lips, and let the conviction accompany the sound of your voice, that you will of a certainty be born into the Pure Land."
(p 31)

"Let the Nembutsu of the Original Vow stand by itself and receive help from no other quarter. By outside help I mean that of one's own wisdom, the observance of the commandments (sila), religious aspiration, deeds of charity, and the like. But the good man, as he is, and the bad man too, as he is, each in his own natural condition, should seek help nowhere except in the Nembutsu. But he is in harmony with the mind of the Buddha who practices it by giving up his wickedness and becoming good. A man who cannot make up his mind, but is always thinking himself unfit in this way or that, will not be sure of attaining birth into the Pure Land."
(p 32)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 8th, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Question About Chinese pure land
Content:
Arabic  Buddhist said:
So what I shall follow ?
Just by practice the name ?
Or practice the Name with Morality ?

Astus wrote:
As Ven. Huifeng said already, Chinese Buddhism doesn't have schools like Japanese Buddhism. There are various outstanding teachers who say this or that about Pure Land. You follow what you have inclination to. Read widely and find the one that you feel drawn towards.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Title: Re: Ippen- Don't worry about your heart/mind.
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
My point is that if you are waiting until you die,
you have already missed that opportunity countless times
even in this one lifetime.

Astus wrote:
From the perspective of the Pure Land teachings, the opportunity that should not be missed, but was missed countless times before, is to grasp and hold on to Amida's vow. Ordinary people are bound by their own habits and fail to comprehend emptiness. Even the most respected masters of various schools say that they are simple unenlightened human beings, although they are educated in the Dharma and spent many years in retreat. What hope can an average lay person have?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Impossible to follow?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The translator, http://amidanet.com/inagaki.htm, is a Shinshu follower, and as such he presented the orthodox view of the teachings of Shinran.

Shinran writes ( http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssVI-15_36.htm#34, http://amidanet.com/kgss-g.htm ):

"Master [Shan-tao's] intent seems to be as follows: He says [in the Essential Meaning of the Contemplation Sutra], "The number of the gateways of the excellent practices provided for different capacities of people is eighty-four thousand and more. Gradual and sudden teachings are suited to their capacities. Those who follow favorable conditions all attain emancipation."

We note, however, that ordinary and ignorant people, who are ever sinking in the state of birth-and-death, find it hard to cultivate a meditative mind, because it requires cessation of thought and concentration of it. A non-meditative mind is also hard to cultivate, because it requires abolishing evil and practicing good. For this reason, visualizing forms and fixing the mind on them are hard to accomplish; hence, Shan-tao says [in the Commentary on the Meditative Practice] "Even if one dedicates a lifetime of a thousand years, the Dharma-eye will not be opened." How much more difficult it is for them to attain formlessness and no-thought! Therefore, he says, "The Tathagata knew beforehand that ordinary people of the latter age defiled by karmic evil would not be able to accomplish even the practice of visualizing forms and concentrating on them - to say nothing of seeking realization without visualizing forms. It would be like building a house in the air without magical means."

Also:

"It is impossible for us, who are possessed of blind passions, to free ourselves from birth-and-death through any practice whatever. Sorrowing at this, Amida made the Vow, the essential intent of which is the evil person's attainment of Buddhahood. Hence, evil persons who entrust themselves to Other Power are precisely the ones who possess the true cause of birth."
( http://www.shinranworks.com/relatedworks/tannisho1.htm#3 )

"It cannot be said that the practicer of self-power is equal to Tathagata. With one's own mind of self-power, it is impossible to reach the land of the Buddha of inconceivable light. It is taught that only by shinjin that is Other Power does one reach the land of the Buddha of inconceivable light."
( http://www.shinranworks.com/shorterworks/virtueofname.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Impossible to follow?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea is that since we live in the Dharma ending age the capacity for difficult practices is virtually non-existent. Therefore the recommended method is the recitation of the name, as that does not require a concentrated mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Ippen- Don't worry about your heart/mind.
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If you think you live maybe a long or short life,
and then you die, and then you go to Amida's realm,
you are still clinging to a self that is real.
in other words, you are still relying on self-power.

Astus wrote:
If we had to be free from clinging to self in order to attain birth in the Pure Land then ordinary beings could never make it. And that is against the very purpose of the Pure Land path, to provide a safe route to buddhahood for everyone.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
smcj said:
The culture of Tibet encouraged and logistically supported people to do extended retreats to a degree not seen elsewhere. You don't see groups of 17 year olds committing to a lifetime of retreat these days, and being given the material support needed to do so (up until the society collapsed due to invasion).

Astus wrote:
Becoming a monk/nun is leaving home, leaving the secular world behind. It is the backbone of the Buddhist tradition, therefore it is very much supported by Buddhists everywhere. There are different types of monasteries, and among them you find those that are even more withdrawn and closed off from the world.

Some examples from China:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6miAPuNYj8
http://www.tricycle.com/interview/the-chinese-hermit-tradition-an-interview-with-red-pine
https://books.google.hu/books?id=UAD5m5f3oH0C

And from Thailand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKxHa07dfo
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel083.html

Outside of Buddhism, other religions also have monastic and eremitic orders, like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosed_religious_orders.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
smcj said:
Do you know of any equivalent opportunity for practice anywhere in the world today?

Astus wrote:
There are strong retreat oriented communities in both Theravada and Mahayana countries. Some follow the traditional dhutanga, some a different type of practice. There are also hermits in mountains and forests. One can not only learn from such people but even join them. As I hinted before, Tibet is not the only Buddhist place on this planet.

Also, it is not even a strictly Buddhist phenomenon that people completely withdraw from the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorite ).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Does this statement come from the Pure Land Sutras themselves, commentaries, or both?

Astus wrote:
It is in the Larger Sutra:

"In the future, the Buddhist scriptures and teachings will perish. But, out of pity and compassion, I will especially preserve this sutra and maintain it in the world for a hundred years more. Those beings who encounter it will attain deliverance in accord with their aspirations."
(Three Pure Land Sutras, p 61; tr. Inagaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Lost foolish being
Content:
Astus wrote:
Fortunately birth in the Pure Land does not require special techniques or empowerments. Realising that one is full of karmic defilements, that only Amitabha's Vow can help in reaching enlightenment, and sincerely aspiring for birth in the Pure Land, these are the essentials for having right faith. And even in times of doubt one should keep the name in mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Ippen- Don't worry about your heart/mind.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shinran's teaching from http://www.shinranworks.com/relatedworks/tannisho1.htm#9:

"Although I say the nembutsu, the feeling of dancing with joy is faint with me, and I have no thought of wanting to go to the Pure Land quickly. How should it be [for a person of the nembutsu]?
When I asked the master this, he answered, "I, too, have had this question, and the same thought occurs to you, Yuien-bo!
"When I reflect deeply on it, by the very fact that I do not rejoice at what should fill me with such joy that I dance in the air and dance on the earth, I realize all the more that my birth is completely settled. What suppresses the heart that that should rejoice and keeps one from rejoicing is the action of blind passions. Nevertheless, the Buddha, knowing this beforehand, called us 'foolish beings possessed of blind passions'; thus, becoming aware that the compassionate Vow of Other Power is indeed for the sake of ourselves, who are such beings, we find it all the more trustworthy.
"Further, having no thought of wanting to go to the Pure Land quickly, we think forlornly that we may die even when we become slightly ill; this is the action of blind passions. It is hard for us to abandon this old home of pain, where we have been transmigrating for innumerable kalpas down to the present, and we feel no longing for the Pure Land of peace, where we have yet to be born. Truly, how powerful our blind passions are! But though we feel reluctant to part from this world, at the moment our karmic bonds to this saha world run out and helplessly we die, we shall go to that land. Amida pities especially the person who has no thought of wanting to go to the Pure Land quickly. Reflecting on this, we feel the great Vow of great compassion to be all the more trustworthy and realize that our birth is settled.
"If we had the feeling of dancing with joy and wishing to go to the Pure Land quickly, we might wonder if we weren't free of blind passions."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I understood that "absence of living Buddhadharma" to be the absence of teachers and practitioners, not texts. But of course, if you have a different opinion I am interested in hearing it!

Astus wrote:
It is said in the Pure Land tradition that the last sutra to remain is the Larger Amitabha Sutra for another 100 years after all the others are gone. And even after that people will attain birth in Sukhavati for some time just by the name. Noble beings are already gone by the time of the Dharma ending age except for adventurous bodhisattvas visiting this realm. Even in the Dharma semblance age Buddhists mostly act out of customs rather than realisation. Also, in Chinese Buddhism it is believed that the first sutra to disappear is the Surangama Sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
JKhedrup said:
But there are some criteria that I think we can hold across the board

Astus wrote:
Yes. And those are both sensible and important.

Indrajala said:
It logically follows that placing spiritual authority in classical texts rather than fallible humans is probably a preferable arrangement given the numbers of degenerate individuals taking advantage of people, to say nothing of all the nepotism, corruption and politics you find in Buddhist institutions.

Astus wrote:
Buddhist institutions are not the work of Mara. I agree with you that one shouldn't glorify everything that is old and Asian, nor take hagiographies at face value. At the same time, communities seem to be doing fine most of the time, and they are usually reliable sources of the Dharma. Neither saints nor devils.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
smcj said:
A book can't call you on your b.s. A good lama can and will.

Astus wrote:
Buddhist teachers are not exclusive to Tibet. You can even find a couple of them among registered users here. Who considers what b.s. is another matter. Teachers are not homogeneous, and who is a "good lama" is a subjective decision on the part of the seeker.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
smcj said:
In my experience, they are completely different. A book can't see through you, know your mind, and know which teaching or practice is right for you--for starters.

Astus wrote:
A teacher can give appropriate advice if s/he knows you personally, as a good friend. And that is great. At the same time, if you study texts, in time you can find just the right answers to whatever questions you may have. And being in a community has lot more to offer than just a single wise fellow rephrasing the Buddha's teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Budha was wrong about desire
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the video she says that the suffering is not the desire itself but focusing on what we don't have and what we don't want. So we should not resist desire and appreciate the present. We should also understand that desire never stops, there is no end of it, thus there is no state to reach and hold on to.

The above statements can be easily matched with the Buddha's teachings. Her ideas about the universe, etc. are a different matter, but fairly understandable considering the cultural background, and they serve the practical application of her teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Books and Teachers
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the time when Buddhists started to write down the words of the Buddha the Dharma has been preserved in a literate medium. Customs, robes, styles, rituals, languages, cultures changed, while the texts were preserved to remain the authentic source. Shakyamuni died, the disciples died, teachers died, but their thoughts were kept in the canon. We can't meet Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi, Gampopa, Dogen, Tsongkhapa, or even modern teachers like Yinshun and Tulku Urgyen. Famous masters today, like Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, are unreachable for most of us. What we have from all of them are their written teachings.

Besides the texts there is also a living, breathing tradition, the Sangha. It is very beneficial to become a part of that, to remove ourselves from the ideal images we might cherish in the confines of our rooms. To see that all Buddhists are human beings, and we are not alone with our troubles and doubts. It is only natural that we want to know others who share our views and interests. It is good to learn from those more experienced in the Dharma than us. In fact, those are also reasons for people joining this very forum.

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

"So then, if someone wants quickly to know full enlightenment, he should indefatigably and continually hear and study this very perfection of wisdom. For he will understand that in the past, when he was a Bodhisattva, the Tathagata trained in the perfection of wisdom; that also he should train in it; that she is his Teacher. In any case, when the Tathagata has disappeared into final Nirvana, the Bodhisattvas should run back to this very perfection of wisdom."
(The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, tr. Conze; ch 3, p 107)

"One should know that such a Bodhisattva is reborn here after he has deceased in other world systems where he has honoured and questioned the Buddhas, the Lords. Any Bodhisattva who, after he has deceased in other world systems where he has honoured and questioned the Buddhas, the Lords, is reborn here, would, when he hears this deep perfection of wisdom being taught, identify this perfection of wisdom 4 with the Teacher, [I771 and be convinced that he is face to face with the Teacher, that he has seen the Teacher. When the perfection of wisdom is being taught, he listens attentively, pays respect to it before he hears it, and does not cut the story short. Such a Bodhisattva should be known as one who has practised for long, who has honoured many Buddhas."
(ch 7, p 138)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamaka, Nagarjuna and Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Samatha meditation in Mahayana is not much different from what you find in Theravada (but no kasinas) and other Agama schools. A good meditation manual related to Madhyamaka is Kamalasila's Bhavanakrama. You may also use Zhiyi's teachings on samatha-vipasyana ( http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/ebm_book_page.htm and http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/sgs_book_page.htm ), or from the Tibetan side the lamrim and lojong teachings of various schools. From the Tibetan side, this is a superb summary of both theory and practice in Madhyamaka: https://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC, and this one is also OK: https://books.google.com/books?id=dJQVkgEACAAJ, and its pair: https://books.google.com/books?id=LHo4Ivw15XQC.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: which pure land do you seek?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Astus, Thanks so much. A few more "must reads" to add to my ever-increasing pile!

Astus wrote:
If you are interested in a more internal argument for Amitabha, Honen's https://books.google.hu/books?id=BT43aTdifVIC (here's a http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/WRITINGS/senchakushu.html ) is the work to look into.

The common argument everywhere is that the Pure Land path is simply the easiest and safest to buddhahood among all the other options. And frankly, this is something that no other Buddhist method or school can beat.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: which pure land do you seek?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Amitabha Buddha is the Lord of the Western Pure Land, and Bhaisayaguru is the Lord of the Eastern Pure Land. My question is why the Western Pure Land is seen as a more desireable option, as Bhaisayaguru (Medicine Buddha) also made powerful vows for the benefit of sentient beings.

Astus wrote:
The Pratyutpanna Sutra was translated to Chinese in the 2nd century. In the 3rd century both Zhi Qian and Saṅghavarman translated the Larger Amitabha Sutra. Huiyuan established the first community dedicated to birth in Amitabha's Pure Land in the early 5th century, while Kumarajiva translated the Shorter Sutra a little later. Zhiyi's (6th century) constantly walking samadhi prescribes contemplation on Amitabha in his grand meditation manual. The so called patriarchs of Pure Land Buddhism ( https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jL3dja0dBkkJ:www.thomehfang.com/kumarajiva/13Patriarchs/13Patriarchs_20Nov2003.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us, http://www.jsri.jp/English/Pureland/lineage.html ) show some traditionally outstanding teachers propagating this teaching.

Besides the above I don't have enough information or resources to provide regarding the social development of the cult of Amitabha. https://books.google.com/books?id=jhKVXrkVlZsC can give some insights, just as https://books.google.com/books?id=Wjv85t5E0hQC, https://books.google.com/books?id=n2h2Gf4dE4MC, and on a linguistic level https://books.google.com/books?id=48nRNu5PlOMC.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Chinese mahayana meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the http://www.acmuller.net/kor-bud/collected_works.html there are two volumes on Huayan, although by Korean authors, but Uisang's seal is known throughout East Asia and it can also be used for meditation. Also, in the second Hwaeom volume it has a treatise on the Ocean Seal Samadhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Chinese mahayana meditation
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Does anyone know of any resources on how meditation was practiced in the Hua Yen tradition?

Astus wrote:
This is the only work I know in English: http://www.fodian.net/world/1884.html. It's also found in Cleary's collection plus commentary.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
oushi said:
When it comes to free will, you may not see it, but it is inconsistent to say that there is no difference between karma (which is cause and effect mechanism) and will, because it would mean that will has it cause so it isn't free, but rather determined bu it's cause. Buddhism is pretty much deterministic, but because of anatta there is ultimately no one determined. All is karma and there is Tathagata, the unconditioned, who is not free to act good or bad, but is free from acting good or bad. And this is what you will find in Zen masters teachings. This is why ethics are only a background framework, an not a major issue.

Astus wrote:
"The nihilistic approach evokes the psychological attitude of fatalism. You understand logically that if you do something, things happen in reaction to it. You see a continuity of cause and effect, a chain reaction over which you have no control. This chain-reactive process springs from the mystery of "nothingness." Therefore, if you murder someone, it was your karma to murder and was inevitable, foreordained. For that matter if you do a good deed, it has nothing to do with whether or not you are awake. Everything springs from this mysterious "nothingness" which is the nihilistic approach to reality. It is a very naive view: one leaves everything to mystery."
(Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche: Shunyata in "Dzogchen Primer", p 225)

Karma is not universal cause and effect, it is ethical responsibility and mental habituation. Fatalism and pre-determinism are not Buddhist views.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Sönam said:
Only confidence can help in this case ... and peoples having recognized there true nature recognize each others, that's the only point.
It is also not a question of being sure of the master, because the one who recognize is You, not the master.
If it is said that this realization is ineffable, it's because it is ... what ever would be the way we try.
Trust me, once, we the energy of the master, you've realized your nature ... doubt is elliminated.

Astus wrote:
That means there is no way to decide who is or who is not an authentic Dzogchen teacher. Either you recognise someone as such or not, but it's completely arbitrary. Consequently there is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being a realised Dzogchen master.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Sönam said:
NO, and that my point ... when one realize his real nature, thru the presence of the teacher, one can not mistake it. Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.
If one is not sure to have realized his true nature, with a teacher ... he has not.

Astus wrote:
But what guarantees the content of the realisation? There are numerous mental states one can believe to be supreme enlightenment. There are many versions of chocolate pudding, it can also be completely artificial flavouring, and a child or a foreigner could be cheated about what a chocolate pudding is.

You say a master is required. In what way is that an assurance? Also, how can one be sure of the master? Like, if you say that this or that person is the orthodox representative of Dzogchen and he decides who is correct and who is wrong, that's one way to go about it, like the Roman Catholics do.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Dronma said:
It is not a matter of any definition, but of recognition through personal experience. 
So, again a qualified Dzogchen Master is absolutely necessary!

Astus wrote:
In your opinion then only a Dzogchen teacher can confirm if one has the correct experience? But how do you confirm that the teacher is indeed giving you introduction to the nature of mind? Should one simply trust the appearance of authenticity of the teacher?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Astus wrote:
So there are the 17 Dzogchen root tantras and there commentaries, however, they are not available in English, so those who can't read Tibetan can't really use them.

Does the three statements of Garab Dorje include a definition of rigpa that is to be introduced? Because it hinges on what is actually being shown, as pointed out by Pero. So if it is clarified then it's still a good measurement. If it isn't, perhaps there is some widely accepted commentary?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: The FGS Buddha tooth
Content:
Indrajala said:
Are you implying in the absence of such details the legitimacy of the relic is enhanced?

Astus wrote:
The legitimacy is unknown without evidence. Isn't that logical?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: The FGS Buddha tooth
Content:
Indrajala said:
Still, in this case the claim is made it was a Buddha tooth that was kept in Tibetan monastery, and yet the Tibetans were unaware of it.

Astus wrote:
Certain Tibetans currently are unaware of it. Do we have the records of the mentioned temple and information on the area?

Indrajala said:
Besides remains dug out of archaeological digs, I'm not likely to believe claims of Buddha relics.

Astus wrote:
Then why is this one so interesting unlike all the others around the world?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Astus wrote:
That's good. It is then quite easy to tell the difference between Dzogchen and not Dzogchen.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Astus wrote:
So the three statements of Garab Dorje can be used in a similar way as the Four Dharma Seals?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: The FGS Buddha tooth
Content:
Indrajala said:
As far as I know, no, but this tooth is purportedly from Tibet, though no record of it exists, and the prominent Tibetans consulted on the matter were unaware of its existence.

Astus wrote:
There are a couple of other questions.

Did Buddha live in Tibet? Does the Tibetan government/church have all there records intact from the time before the Communist occupation? Did they have a reliable record of every relics throughout the country? Is the tooth from a temple that is well known? Do other relics in general have some certificate next to them? Is there a way to tell the difference between genuine and fake relics? What is the importance of that tooth relic anyway?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: The FGS Buddha tooth
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is there a single tooth relic anywhere that was confirmed by an independent team of scientists to be at least from around the time of the Buddha? Or any other Buddha relic?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Title: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-lands and Pure-Lands
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't know about a buddha-land classification system, so I'm just saying how I think about it.

The Saha world is the buddha-land of Shakyamuni only in the sense that he was present here, however, he is no more around. It is probably because of the absence of Shakyamuni that the search for other buddhas emerged, since there are infinite number of buddhas.

I don't know of a separate land of Shakyamuni. Do you have a source? Here is a short summary of how the buddha-land of Shakyamuni is often understood: http://jkllr.net/2008/12/24/shakyamuni-buddhas-pure-land/.

It is part of the bodhisattva work to establish one's own buddha-land when becoming a buddha. The difference between buddhas and lands is explained by the difference in their specific vows.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Anders said:
I think this demonstrates more that Zen can be obscure more than that it can be complex.

Astus wrote:
I agree.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Bankei compares samurai to easily breaking china because their code of honour requires them to answer even the smallest disrespect as if it were a serious challenge, he also tells a story where a samurai intentionally bumped into people to call it an offence and give him reason to kill them (Waddell, p 108-109).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Meido said:
Bankei had several teachers.

Adding to Kirt's points, we might also recall that after his initial awakening Bankei still went looking for someone to confirm his experience [he found Dosha Chogen, who told him that he had indeed recognized his nature but had yet to clarify it...Bankei at first rejected this, but then realized Dosha was right and so stayed to practice under him for over a year].

Astus wrote:
But he realised the unborn on his own and, although visited teachers, later rejected them. That is, he tried to find someone who could give him the teachings but failed. He tried to follow the traditional route but it didn't work. So, I go with Kirt on this, that while certainly Bankei had sources to learn about Zen - and he was an ordained monk - it was not the case that he found the right teacher eventually.

"I can see now, looking back to that meeting, that even Dosha's realization was less than complete. If only he were alive today, I could make him into a fine teacher. It's a great shame. He died too soon." (Waddell, p 47-48)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Luke said:
But still, I would argue that Zen meditations are simpler than tantric meditations.  However, talking about Zen can certainly be as complicated as talking about any other Buddhist tradition.

Astus wrote:
If you were familiar with the full system of koan practice in Rinzai Zen you might reconsider that.

Very briefly:
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/Zen_Sand.html

Briefly (PDF):
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/Zen_Sand-Wu.pdf

The complete introduction as in the book (PDF):
http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/en/files/2012/12/Zen-Sand-Introduction.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think it is only a stereotype that Tantra is complicated while Zen is simple. As already mentioned, there are many ways in Vajrayana that are simple and straightforward. On the other hand, if you have ever looked into a classic Zen work like the Blue Cliff Record, it is anything but simple.

Zen and Tantra (from "Dropping Ashes on the Buddha", p 79-80)

One evening, after a Dharma talk at the Boston Dharmadhatu, a student said to Seung Sahn Soen-sa, "At a recent seminar on Zen and Tantra, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche compared Zen to black and white and tantra to color. What do you think of this?"
Soen-sa smiled and said, "Which one do you prefer?"
(Laughter from the audience.)
The student shrugged his shoulders.
Soen-sa said, "What color is your shirt?"
"Red."
"You are attached to color."
The student hesitated for a few moments, then said,
"Maybe you are attached to black and white."
Soen-sa said, "The arrow has already passed downtown."
There was a long silence. "Do you understand?" (A few giggles.) "Okay, I will explain: The dog runs after the bone." There was another long nervous silence. "Okay, I will explain even more." (Loud laughter.) "When you are thinking, your mind and my mind are different. When you are not thinking, your mind and my mind are the same. Now tell me -when you are not thinking, is there color? Is there black and white? Not thinking, your mind is empty mind. Empty minds means cutting off all speech and words. Is there color then?"
"I don't know."
"You don't know? I hit you! Now do you understand?" (Laughter.) "In original mind there is no color, no black and white, no words, no Buddha, no Zen, no Tibetan Buddhism."
The student bowed and said, "Thank you."
Soen-sa said, "'Thank you? ' What do you mean by 'Thank you'?"
"Only 'Thank you.'" 
Soen-sa laughed and said, "Only 'Thank you' is good. I hope that you soon understand your true self."
The student said, "I've begun."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Malcolm said:
It makes you wonder if the secrecy advocated in the Buddhist tantras is not so much about being secret as it is "Hey guys,  this Hindu yoga stuff is freaking awesome, but if our Buddhist compatriots get wind of how effective this stuff is a) they won't believe us b) they will consider us heretics no matter how much we insist our view is grounded in Buddhadharma".

Astus wrote:
And that gives another group of who shouldn't practice Vajrayana. Those who don't believe in ("transcendent") energy and related ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Stage of Non-retrogression
Content:
Astus wrote:
A whole chapter on the subject in Shinran's Kyogyoshinsho: http://www.amidanet.com/kgss-e.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?  People that don't want to practice Vajrayana!  It's not like anybody is pointing a gun at your head or anything...


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
To add some more to what Meido said, as a consequence of established monasteries, Buddhism relied on the support of the ruling - i.e. warrior/aristocratic - class in every country. Chan spread and survived because of its close connection to Chinese regional landlords (it is a myth that Chan monasteries were self-reliant).

I think when we are talking about the connection between samurai and Zen it is primarily a modern image, a myth, that is connected to the Western fascination with Asian martial arts and all things oriental. It is not a historical question, as history is a lot more complicated thing. For instance, in Song China the Zen teachings were for educated lay people, for literati and aristocrats, and not the common people. And that's true for most of the well known Zen teachers themselves who came from upper class families. And so it is with Zen in Japan.

"Does Buddhist practice have anything to offer someone - like a police officer, a soldier, a government official - whose work involves the use of force or its authorization?"

Of course, and that depends on the individual's level of interest. I don't think that Buddhism should appear as some sort of judgement of character. It is an open market. People take and use whatever they want. One can be a soldier, a banker, an office clerk or even a criminal, and at the same time Buddhist. There is no such thing as excommunication from the religion. Only monastics can lose their robes, but not the refuge they take.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Luke said:
So did Yasutani-roshi invent this particular classification which starts with "bompu" and "gedo"?

Astus wrote:
Can't say whether it was his interpretation, he heard it from someone else, or some other way it got presented like that in the Three Pillars of Zen. Someone should have to do a research on the development of the theory of five types of Zen. All I can say is that Zongmi had a different idea.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Luke said:
So this "Bompu Zen" idea was made up by Yasutani-roshi or by some other Japanese Zen teacher?

Astus wrote:
The order presented on the Wanderling's site is different from the original as it first puts ordinary Zen followed by outsider Zen. Originally the Zen of ordinary people means those Buddhist practitioners who don't aim for any liberation but rather to accumulating merit and gaining pleasurable birth as humans and gods. The difference in Zongmi's system between outsiders' and ordinary people's Zen lies in accepting the teaching of karma and rebirth or not, that is, Buddhist or non-Buddhist. Both follow basic precepts against the worst misdeeds and cultivate some sort of spiritual practice, that can be conveniently called the eight absorptions as they are the requirements for birth in the form and formless heavens. The Wanderling's site's description of Bompu and Gedo Zen focus more on pursuing worldly goals in defining them, however, those following a materialist philosophy don't qualify for any level of Zen in Zongmi's system. It is another thing that the other three levels are also understood differently by the Wanderling and Zongmi.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The "five types of Zen" was created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifeng_Zongmi. "Samurai Zen" doesn't fit in it anywhere, the so called outsider Zen is for non-Buddhist religious practitioners, particularly Taoists and Confucianists, as Zongmi explains in his "Origin of Humanity". He writes in Chan Prolegomenon (J. L. Broughton: Zongmi on Chan, p 103):

"The true nature is neither stained nor pure, neither common nor noble. Within dhyana, however, there are different grades, ranging from the shallow to the deep. To hold deviant views and practice because one joyfully anticipates rebirth in a heaven and is weary of the present world is outsider dhyana. Correctly to have confidence in karmic cause and effect and likewise practice because one joyfully anticipates rebirth into a heaven and is weary of the present world is common-person dhyana. To awaken to the incomplete truth of voidness of self and then practice is inferior-vehicle dhyana. To awaken to the true principle of the dual voidness of selfand dharmas and then to practice is greatvehicle dhyana. (All four of the above types show such distinctions as the four [dhyanas of the realm of] form and the four [concentrations of the] formless [realm].) If one's practice is based on having all-at-once awakened to the realization that one's own mind is from the outset pure, that the depravities have never existed, that the nature of the wisdom without outflows is from the outset complete, that this mind is buddha, that they are ultimately without difference, then it is dhyana of the highest vehicle. This type is also known by such names as tathagata-purity dhyana, the one-practice concentration, and the thusness concentration. It is the basis of all concentrations. If one can practice it from moment to moment, one will naturally and gradually attain the myriad concentrations. This is precisely the dhyana that has been transmitted down from Bodhidharma."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 20th, 2013 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Hsu Yun ---paralysis meditation---question
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is an answer to the issue (in PDF): http://www.chibs.edu.tw/ch_html/chbj/22/0619huimin.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 20th, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Title: Re: Are samurai good symbols of Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is interesting that while the Crusades are cited to show how the Christian(s / Church) can be vicious and bloodthirsty, Eastern warriors are acceptable. Although perhaps the whole romance surrounding chivalric virtues and stories is a more appropriate parallel to the idea of the samurai. Indeed, the acceptance of Buddhism in the West is part of the Romantic movement.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 20th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
shel said:
...strayed from the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha...

There is no question that Zen ethics are questionable. The better question at this point is why is that the case? Why can a sociopath so easily become a Zen master? What allows that to happen?

Astus wrote:
To acknowledge that they strayed from the teachings by committing immoral actions is also saying that there is an ethical norm expected to be upheld. That is, it confirms that there is such a thing as Zen ethics, and that is the measure of their behaviour.

As for how someone who acts unethically could become and remain a Zen teacher is not a question about the ethical teachings of Zen but rather the institutional structure. Or rather about Westerners who like to believe in omniscient gurus and crazy wisdom. Both are a different topic that has already been discussed previously in the Zen Has no Morals thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 19th, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-lands and Pure-Lands
Content:
Astus wrote:
The teaching of mind-only Pure Land supports the general Pure Land teachings. That is, people perceive based on their karma. Even if it is a buddha standing before one, only with the right karma - right mental seeds - can one realise it is a buddha. Although Shakyamuni lived in India, it didn't make the world pure and peaceful for everyone. Also, this world is generated by the karma of the beings living here, while the buddha-land of Amitabha is created by his vows.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 19th, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
Luke said:
Okay, but it still doesn't directly say that practicing evil actions without forming the concept of self, person, life-span or sentient being is the wrong way to go or is not Zen.  I'm looking for a quote that clearly rejects this mistaken idea.

Or getting historical, were there any Zen masters in medieval Japan who were harsh critics of the samurai instead of being samurai apologists?

Astus wrote:
The Diamond Sutra speaks about what is to be practised by a bodhisattva. It doesn't go into avoiding evil actions but only talks about good actions. Texts that talk about avoiding evil are first of all found in the Vinaya collection, and that is part of every Buddhist canon. The Zen tradition kept the Vinaya, therefore it is part of it. Only the Japanese tradition dumped the complete Vinaya but it kept the Brahma Net Sutra that teaches the bodhisattva precepts.

Master Xuyun in explaining the prerequisites of http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/chan_sessions2.html gives first the firm belief in karma and the observance of discipline:

"Whoever One may be, especially if striving to perform one's religious duty, one should believe firmly in the law of causality. If one lacks this belief and does whatever one likes, not only will one fail in the performance of religious duty, but also there will be no escape from this law (of causality) even in the three unhappy ways."

"In striving to perform one's religious duty, the first thing is to observe the rules of discipline. For discipline is the fundamental of the Supreme Bodhi; discipline begets immutability and immutability begets wisdom. There is no such thing as self-cultivation without observance of the rules of discipline."

Or if we want to go back in time, a 1000 years earlier Baizhang Huihai says at the beginning of his recorded sayings that for the uninstructed beginners one has to first teach about precepts and renunciation, but for those who have renounced the world should teach about the mind.

The very first mistake some people make is to think that Zen is somewhat outside of Buddhism. Zen is a Mahayana tradition that doesn't teach anything different from what the Buddha said. Zen doesn't have any separate ethics from what is already in the canonical texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: 'Mind' in Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
As for the early sciptures, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html states it clearly that only uninstructed people believe that there is something lasting in mind. As for nibbana not being mind: http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/ Also check out Maha Boowa's teaching: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/boowa/straight.html#radiant.

For Mahayana, the best source on what mind is is Yogacara, as they produced a substantial amount of generally recognised treatises on the subject. Within the eight consciousnesses there is nothing lasting, even the karmic seeds have only a momentary existence.

In chapter 14 of Xuanzang's Cheng Weishi Lun (tr. Cook), it explains eternity regarding the dharmakaya:

"This [result] is also ETERNAL, because it is endless. The pure realm of the Dharma is said to be ETERNAL, because it is devoid of origination, devoid of cessation, and by nature unchanging. Because the support of classes of mind of the four knowledges is eternal, they are endless and therefore said to be eternal, but not that they are eternal by nature, because they originate from causes, because of the categorical declaration that that which is born ends with cessation, and because we do not see form or mind that is not impermanent. However, as a result of the power of original vows and the inexhaustible number of sentient beings to be converted, the four classes of knowledge last forever, uninterrupted and endless."

In the same chapter:

"It is also said that the Dharma body is devoid of generation and cessation, only acquired through causes for its realization, neither form nor mind, etc."

Candrakirti in the Madhyamakavatara (11:17; tr. Leschly) says practically the same:

"When the dry firewood of everything knowable,
Is [consumed by the fire of wisdom], the peace of the victorious one's dharmakaya [is all there remains]
At that moment, there is no creation and no cessation;
When mind ceases, its [enjoyment]-body manifests in actuality."

However, the above only applies to a buddha's dharmakaya and not to the usual 6/8 consciousnesses. This is what later schools like Zen and Vajrayana call the (true) nature of the mind. The quoted "luminous mind" section doesn't fit the description of the dharmakaya as it cannot be defiled.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
Luke said:
This question of mine still hasn't really been addressed.  How do these "mushin" ("no-mind") types of concepts imply any morality?

Astus wrote:
The Diamond Sutra explains it very well, how a bodhisattva should practice charity and save all beings without forming the concept of self, person, life-span or sentient being. That is no-mind practice.

Dogen starts the Jukai chapter in Shobogenzo (tr. Nearman) this way:

"All Buddhas in the three temporal worlds—past, present, and future—affirm that to leave home life behind is to realize the Truth. The twenty-eight Indian Ancestors and the six Chinese Ancestors, all of whom Transmitted the Buddha’s Mind seal,* were, each and every one of them, monastics. Most likely, it was because they strictly observed the monastic regulations that they were able to become outstanding models for those in the three worlds of desire, form, and beyond form. Thus, in practicing meditation and inquiring of the Way with their Master, they made the Precepts and the monastic regulations foremost. Had they not distanced themselves from their faults and guarded against misdeeds, how could they have realized Buddhahood and become Ancestors?"


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
Luke said:
Right, but how much importance do they place on them?

Astus wrote:
One should not forget that there is a big difference between modern Western Zen and Zen in East Asian countries, especially before the 20th century. Zen was the philosophy of elite monastics and higher class laity. For older monastics you don't need to preach about the precepts, and enthusiastic aristocrats were also familiar with them. Also, there's a strong connection between the transmission of precepts and the transmission of Zen, as summed up here: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=13679. For instance, Heze Shenhui - the first propagator of radical sudden enlightenment and the so called southern school - made a career of giving bodhisattva and monastic precepts. The famous Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch bears in its title that it is taught from the "ordination platform", and its central chapter is about precepts and repentance practice.

Luke said:
I guess there is also the question of how much Zen books reflect actual Zen practice, as opposed to just what sells.

Astus wrote:
Exactly.

Luke said:
But weren't most of his regulations morally neutral stuff like how to prepare soup with perfect concentration without wasting any ingredients?

Astus wrote:
The Eihei Shingi of Dogen contains various regulations. They are about monastic organisation. It also has rules against for instance bringing weapons, meat, secular books, musical instruments, etc. into the study hall. It regulates how unruly monks should be handled, managing financial matters, etc. The Shobogenzo contains writings on the 16 precepts and other ethical issues. Since becoming a monk includes taking the precepts, and Zen practice contains the bodhisattva vows, the essential ethical teachings are unavoidable and they are the backbone of the entire training.

Luke said:
Can you provide a link about this, please?

Astus wrote:
There are books discussing it briefly, like "The Zen Koan" of Miura & Sasaki that describe Rinzai training. As for Baizhang's rules, you can download it from the BDK site: http://www.bdkamerica.org/digital/dBET_T2025_Baizhang_2006.pdf, and there's also Ven. Yifa's book "The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China".


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
shel said:
According to Bodhidharma (first Chinese patriarch) Zen follows a "special transmission outside scriptures" which "did not stand upon words". Does not stand upon words, Astus. But perhaps you know better than Bodhidharma.

Incidentally, Bodhidharma is credited with the physical training of the Shaolin monks

Astus wrote:
Both are later additions to the legend of Bodhidharma (attribution of the four-line slogan to Bodhidharma: 11th century (The Koan: Texts and Contexts, p 79); kungfu and Shaolin temple: 13th century; martial art book by Bodhidharma: 1642 (Seeing through Zen, p 26)). However, Zen existed within a strictly monastic environment from the very beginning, and they emphasised the upholding of precepts early on (Mario Poceski: Guishan jingce (Guishan’s Admonitions) and the Ethical Foundations of Chan Practice in "Zen Classics", p 15f).

shel said:
In fact they ARE the tradition. They are the "special transmission outside the scriptures."

Astus wrote:
No. First of all, Buddhism is not a single centralised institution, nor is Zen. One person is not a representative of everyone else, and certainly not the entire tradition. Possessing a certificate of transmission only means that the one person who gave that believes that man worthy of it. But it is not a validation of a central examination. You are using the concept of collective responsibility, however, such a thing does not exist in Buddhism.

shel said:
I've shown that in effect the "special transmission outside the scriptures" doesn't need to have a conscience. Indeed, some in Zen go so far as to suggest that overriding conscience is necessary, or even indispensable.

Astus wrote:
You have shown that there are a few people how intentionally distort specific teachings to back up their immoral actions. This is nothing new, as some have misinterpreted the teachings like no-self and emptiness in the same way, but at the same time such perversities were regularly refuted by outstanding masters, starting with the Buddha himself. Per definition a bodhisattva must have great compassion. Without compassion there are no bodhisattvas, therefore no Zen practitioners.

Three books on Zen and ethics by current Zen teachers:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=Jy0ArFx-YEgC https://books.google.hu/books?id=koijpfpwiHgC https://books.google.hu/books?id=EeXSq0GSwekC


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-lands and Pure-Lands
Content:
zamotcr said:
1. Each of this universes or trichiliocosm are limited in space right? It's like a big galaxy are they?

3. Thanks to previous discussions with you, I learned that Amitabha's PL is a Sambhogakaya realm, so other buddha-lands. Could you provide an example of a nirmanakaya pure land?

5. But isn't it true that for instance Amitabha's Pure Land is above highest heavens, outside samsara and triple realm? In which sense can the physical senses apply to Amitabha's Pure Land? Are beings there of physical matter, like us?

Astus wrote:
1. Yes, objects exist in space. Only mental phenomena are without form.

3. The present buddha Shakyamuni is the example of nirmanakaya, so all the previous buddhas are also nirmanakaya, and where we live is their land. I don't know if there is a clear definition somewhere of what counts as nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya realm. In East Asia it was through the development of Pure Land teachings that Amitabha is now considered a sambhogakaya land, but in Tibetan Buddhism they differentiate between Amitabha as nirmanakaya and Amitayus as sambhogakaya. I'd say - and this is just speculation - that where all the six realms exist count as nirmanakaya and where only select people - noble ones - are present are sambhogakaya. Or another interpretation is possible, the appearance of nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya depends simply on the perceiver's level of enlightenment, since sambhogakaya is visible only to noble bodhisattvas.

5. Yes, in the East Asian system of 10 realms worlds of buddhas are separate from the six samsaric realms. However, in Buddhism "physical" (rupa) means simply the four elements that actually correspond to fundamental sense-perceptions of heat, solidity, movement and cohesion. When there is a visible object, it is rupa. When there is an auditory object, it is rupa, etc. It's not like assuming some essentially physical behind perception.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
shel said:
I've done better than merely argue the case, I've shown evidence.

But okay, I reason that because an apparent sociopath (someone without a conscience or sense of responsibility for other beings) can be a transmitted and realized master of Zen, that therefor conscience and a sense of social responsibility is superfluous in Zen. A Zen master can do pretty much whatever they like and still be considered a realized Zen master. Shimano, for example, is still considered a realized master of Zen.

Astus wrote:
Evidence would be if you could show in the canonised scriptures of Zen that it denies ethical behaviour. What you gave evidence to is that there can be individuals who act unethically, however, that does not discredit the entire tradition. Devadatta was a fully ordained monk, nevertheless, he did bad things.

You are giving lot of credit to the status of Japanese Zen priest. Such words as "transmitted" and "realised" have meaning only in a modern Western Zen context. It is quite unimaginable if a Chinese abbot behaved unseemly who wouldn't be shortly removed from his position and banished from the monastery.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
Rather how is the phenomenal world not nihilistic insofar as the term nihilism means the world has no real existence?

Astus wrote:
Real and exist - that are negated - mean ultimately real and existent. Ultimately means substantially, independently. No Buddhist says that a 'table' doesn't exist at all, what emptiness and dependent origination means is that a 'table' does not exist in and of itself independently of everything else. There is no 'substance' in a table. A table is necessarily made of several parts and it has a limited existence as that. It naturally disintegrates eventually. But a table exists as something one can see, touch, smell and think of.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddha-lands and Pure-Lands
Content:
zamotcr said:
1. Saha world is just a world system (like a galaxy) or Saha applies to our complete universe?
2. What is the difference between a Buddhaksetra and a Pure Land?
3. Are Pure Lands always a reward land, a Sambhogakaya land?
4. If Saha World is just a world system, there can be other world systems like our saha world, impure?
5. All impure Buddha Lands are physical, I mean, material worlds, like the same physical plane or dimension as us?

Astus wrote:
1. Sahaloka (World of Endurance) signifies our universe (trichiliocosm) from hells to heavens.
2. The term "pure land" occurred first in Chinese language as an equivalent of "buddha land" and they are synonyms.
3. No, they can be both nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya.
4. There are many worlds, many universes.
5. Something physical is not automatically impure. Only the mind can be impure. And yes, from the very word "land" comes that buddha lands have an appearance perceptible by the five physical senses. In Buddhism only the highest heavens of the formless realm are without physical qualities.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
shel said:
Not just any people who have behaved unethically. The people mentioned are transmitted and realized Zen masters and teachers of Zen. Are there any more relevant exemplars of Zen ethics? It goes to the very heart of what transmission and realization mean in Zen.

Astus wrote:
Zen is approximately 1500 years old. I don't see people bringing up the story of Nanquan's cat or Juzhi's finger to point out how bad Zen teachers are. And again, the cases like that of Shimano was already addressed in that other thread that is about the lack of morals in Zen. So, I think that if you want to run a debate about the ethicalness of Zen here - and I consider that a fine idea - instead of citing those few well known incidents, bring in some reasoning and such to support the argument that Zen has an ethical fault.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shel,

The question is whether Zen has ethics, not whether you can give a list of incidents where people behaved unethically. However, if you can logically show that Zen necessarily leads to bad morals it is a different matter, and there is already a topic like that: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=9305.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
This means also that emptiness cannot be established apart from the phenomenal world. But we can't stop here if we do this blossoms into nihilism.

Astus wrote:
In your interpretation how could the affirmation of the phenomenal world mean nihilism?

Koji said:
I forgot to mention it, but we can say that emptiness is the negation of false views. Naturally, too, there is no Buddha-nature to be found in emptiness since BN transcends causation (i.e. dependent origination). Hence, there is neither mystical unity nor kensho. As far it it goes we are still stuck in samsara. This is why we have to get beyond emptiness. It is inadequate. Emptiness is only descriptive, not essence. We have to be on guard not to reify emptiness making it, for example, into universal nothingness ( sarva-abhavat ). The true middle path leads to Buddha-nature or the same Mind-only. Here is where mystical unity or kensho kicks in.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is not holding on to any view:

"If even my correct teachings are to be abandoned, how much more incorrect teachings?"
(Diamond Sutra, ch 6)

"The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the elimination of all views.
Anyone for whom emptiness is a view
Is incorrigible."
(MMK 13.8)

If you say there is a view beyond no view, that is another view and it is attachment.

"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. ... Buddhas and patriarchs are people with nothing to do."
(Record of Linji, p 17; tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen have ethics?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sure it does. Japanese take the bodhisattva precepts, in other countries they take all the usual Buddhist precepts. Dogen wrote extensively on regulations, in modern Rinzai meditation on the bodhisattva precepts is the final and highest stage of koan practice. Also, Chan traditionally has an extra set of precepts for monastics called the Pure Regulations that is attributed to Baizhang.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: zixing or self-nature
Content:
some1 said:
the Sixth Patriarch HuiNeng was not a well educated person and he should be unaware of the Sanskrit terms

Astus wrote:
Except that the writer(s) of the Platform Sutra were well educated, but it still doesn't have to do anything with Sanskrit.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Title: Re: Buddhas, omnipotence and mantras
Content:
Astus wrote:
brendan,

Purification happens because you practice. There is nothing magical here. Instead of thinking about one's desires and aversions, one focuses on the object of meditation, thus overwriting to some extent one's habits. This is purification.

Supernatural powers like having many bodies and reading minds are not exclusive for bodhisattvas and buddhas but practically any being (including the lower realms) with a not too dull mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
But in practice such an idea can be misleading.

Astus wrote:
Only if one believes that there is nothing to change about identifying with phenomena. Otherwise it is actually pointing to the practice to be done, because one has to see the emptiness of one's own everyday experience and not look for some supernatural realm outside of that. Also, obtaining the "ordinary mind" is right here and not some other place.

jeeprs said:
Again these passages stress the profound difference between the Buddha and the 'ignorant worldling'.

Astus wrote:
The difficulty is not in the teaching but the abilities of the practitioner. Thick and dull people should busy themselves with repentance, purification practices and merit accumulation, not high level wisdom teachings that only confuses them.

jeeprs said:
I think Astus is reading this in a somewhat 'deflationary' way, to dismiss or discount the essentially 'world-transcending' attributes and characteristics of 'the Tathagatha'. It is possible to interpret many Zen passages in support of that view, but I don't read those passages the same way.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, Zen is the path of sudden enlightenment for those with the proper abilities. Otherwise one should look at the general Mahayana teachings and follow the gradual training. It is useless to follow a method meant for high level practitioners when one has lesser abilities.

"Those of dull faculties who cannot bring this into effect
Must continuously strive at repentance
Of their beginningless crimes.
When all hindrances are extinguished
The Buddha-state appears before your eyes."
(Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, ch 11)

"Therefore, being with no place to dwell is the way of all Buddha activity.  The Mind that does not abide anywhere is the Perfect Awakening,  Without understanding the Unconditioned Truth, even with much learning and diligent practice, one still does not recognize one's own Mind. ...  Because one lacks the capacity for sudden Awakening, one must study the Tao of Dhyana for 3, 5, or 10 years.  There is no special arrangement or negotiation for achieving Buddhadharma.  However, this Teaching of the Tathagata exists as an expedient for the purpose of transforming all beings.  For example, one shows a yellow leaf to a crying baby and pretends that it is gold.  This is not really true, but it stops the crying of the baby.  If a teaching says that there is truly something to obtain, then it is not the Teaching of my sect, nor would I be a member of such an heretical sect."
(Huang-po: Chung-Ling Record)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
As I read Astus he is saying that the conditioned cannot be transcended (nirvana-ed) because there is nothing beyond conditionality (nirvana is thus not real). In this respect, the unconditioned (nirvana) has no relevance for us. This is hardly a recipe for mystical unity and especially kensho which in every way implies transcendence of conditionality.

Astus wrote:
What I'm saying is that there is no unconditioned outside of the conditioned. Conditioned is essentially unconditioned. That is, appearances are originally empty. There is no emptiness outside of appearances. And looking for an unconditioned somewhere else is following mistaken ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land Resources
Content:
Mr. G said:
I recommend this: http://www.ymba.org/BWF/bwf0.htm

Luke said:
Unfortunately, that website doesn't exist anymore.  But here is the web archive for it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081205151947/http://www.ymba.org/BWF/bwf0.htm

Astus wrote:
The website is up and running, they just reorganised things: http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land Resources
Content:
Mr. G said:
I recommend this: http://www.ymba.org/BWF/bwf0.htm

Luke said:
Unfortunately, that website doesn't exist anymore.  But here is the web archive for it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081205151947/http://www.ymba.org/BWF/bwf0.htm

Astus wrote:
The website is up and running, they just reorganised things: http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: I just want to hear your opinion. No offenses please,
Content:
Astus wrote:
Vaisnavas believe that Buddha was an incarnation of Visnu. Indian religions are often distinguished by Hindus whether they follow the Vedas or not ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika ). So the above commentary criticises the Jainas because they are neither orthodox Hindu nor Buddhists,


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
how does this give rise to compassion? What is the link? In my experience it is not a matter of 'incorporating Bodhicitta' because it is something beyond your will. It has to happen to you. It is not something you do, but something you yield to, or so it seems to me.

Astus wrote:
Great compassion comes from opening up for all appearances, from not hanging on a supposedly unconditioned state (the usual theme of sravakas stuck in nirvana), but through seeing our human-sentient nature we understand the struggle of all beings and can only wish for their well being and liberation. That's how emptiness and compassion are inseparable.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
Where is the joy in all this? Where is the energy that fuels the bodhicitta that feels compassion for all beings? If Zen enlightenment is simply 'disillusionment', then why strive for anything? If it is such an ordinary matter, if there really is 'no gold', then what is the point?

Astus wrote:
Kensho, seeing nature, is disillusionment with one's objects of attachment. Because one sees the actual nature of mind as ungraspable, unattainable, unborn, that is, dependently appearing like dreams and magic tricks. As Zhiyan explains the metaphor of Indra's net (Entry into the Inconceivable, p 136), there is no special power involved when the teachings talk about things like "infinite buddha-lands in a single atom" etc. In Zen this is called the functioning of the mind. Case 4 of the Book of Equanimity is an example:

"When the World-Honored One was walking with his assembly, he pointed to the ground with his hand and said, "This place is good for building a temple." Indra took a stalk of grass and stuck it in the ground and said, "The temple has been built." The World-Honored One smiled."

Or as Yuanwu said in the intro to case 8 of the Blue Cliff Record: "Sometimes we take a blade of grass and use it as a sixteen foot golden body [of the buddha]; sometimes we take a sixteen foot golden body and use it as a blade of grass."

If this is viewed as mystical and magical one automatically distances oneself from the immediate reality. That is, thoughts come and go, change and move around, but they are no problem as long as one does not take them to be anything substantial.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Buddhas, omnipotence and mantras
Content:
Astus wrote:
So called "other power" works in Buddhism based on ones association with it. You do the mantras, you have faith in it, so you actually do the practise. Without practice there is no effect.

Honen's poem expresses this well:
Amida's Light

The Sutra says: ''Amida's light illumines all sentient beings throughout the ten worlds, who call upon the sacred name, protects and never forsakes them."

There is no place where the moonlight
Casts not its cheering ray;
With him who has the seeing eye
Alone that light will stay.

(Joseph A. Fitzgerald: Honen the Buddhist Saint, p 79)
See also this Dharma talk on the poem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIG9YLW4AV4


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
My analogy fits perfectly insofar as Fa-tsang drew a distinction between the gold/noumenon and the lion shape/phenomenon. He described the noumenon as the substance or essence which is by nature clear and pure and all perfect, not to mention luminous. This substance he explains is Dharmata, the nature underlying all things.

As for your last remark "there is no nirvana outside of samsara," nirvana cannot exist in samsara because its own nature is unconditioned. Escape from all conditioned states is only possible because we have as our own nature that which is the antithesis of conditionality, namely, the unconditioned element (cp. Itivuttaka-atthakathâ II.2.6).

Astus wrote:
First let's look at what Fazang calls the five doctrines. This strong distinction you mention between gold and form is OK for the first stage of Sravakayana. But already at the second of basic Mahayana dependent origination is identified as emptiness, thus they are not two. In the final Round Doctrine of the One Vehicle there is the interpenetration of phenomena with phenomena (the fourth dharmadhatu) where "whatever arises is absolutely true" and "myriad manifestations, despite their variety, interpenetrate without confusion or disarray".

Right before the list of the five doctrines Fazang simply states: "There is nothing apart from the gold." And before that: "Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed". That is, whatever is seen is gold, just as it is. He explains it in detail in the ten mysteries, where "the gold and the lion are simultaneously established", "the gold and the lion both establish and include each other in harmony", "The one is the other. The principal and the companion interchange their radiance." and "the gold and the lion may be manifest or hidden, one or many, but they are both devoid of a Self-being [Svabhāva]".

In practical terms Fazang teaches: "when we look at the lion, we see at once that all conditioned things, without going through the process of disintegration, are from the beginning in a state of quiescent non-existence." The appearances are not destroyed, no external peaceful state gained, simply the actual nature of appearances are seen. So he says: "To comprehend the fact that from the very no-beginning all illusions are in reality non-existent is called Enlightenment."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Treetop said:
What about a “universal non-substance”? We all share a Buddha nature, is that universal?

Astus wrote:
Universal non-substance is emptiness, no-self, i.e. nothing has a substance. Buddha-nature has many interpretations, it generally refers to the capability to attain buddhahood and not some hidden soul.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
A good analogy might be made of the difference between a pot of clay and clay itself or of a gold lion and gold.

Astus wrote:
And for that a good explanation is http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sevenfold_reasoning_of_the_chariot. Or, to make it more complicated, there is Fazang's http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Miscellaneous/Treatise_on_Golden_Lion.html. Candrakirti shows how no essence can be established anywhere, Fazang shows how emptiness and phenomena are inseparable and interpenetrated.

Koji said:
Reading your comments you seem to be championing samsara/conditionality and maculate minds over nirvana/unconditionality and immaculate minds.

Astus wrote:
As above, not established and interpenetrated. The dichotomy of samsara and nirvana is only a skilful means, but there is no nirvana outside of samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Owner/Host/Awareness
Content:
Astus wrote:
Heze Shenhui was the first to emphasise "awareness/knowing" in Chan and connected it with the practice of no-thought. This was later followed by practically every later Chan teacher but mostly by Guifeng Zongmi, Yongming Yanshou and Pojo Jinul. This teaching on awareness is easily misconstrued as an atman similar to Sankhya and other essentialist views. What shows that awareness is not an ultimate soul is the practice (see: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11398 ) where it is not that one finds something eternal but does not abide in anything. Thus it is in harmony with the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on emptiness. Zen is a very practical path, therefore when one wants to compare it to non-Buddhist philosophies it is understandable that those ignorant of the doctrinal teachings confuse it with wrong views.

"The term “Owner” is used here to mean the non-birth-and-death essence within this body composed of the five aggregates. This essence will fully manifest itself when one’s feelings, conceptions, mental formations, and consciousness calm down. It is never apart with these aggregates, but when they are operating, we rarely realize this essence. 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."
(Thich Thanh Tu: Keys to Buddhism, p 57-58)

"Foreign dust illustrates false thinking, and voidness illustrates self-nature, that is the permanent host who does not follow the guest in the latter's coming and going. This serves to illustrate the eternal (unmoving) self-nature which does not follow false thinking in its sudden rise and fall. Therefore, it is said: 'if one is unmindful of all things, one will meet with no inconvenience when surrounded by all things.' By dust which moves of itself and does not inconvenience voidness which is cleafly still, one means that false thinking rises and falls by itself and does not hinder the self-nature which is immutable in its Bhutatathata (suchness, thatness) condition. This is the meaning of the saying: 'If the mind does not arise, all things are blameless.'
...
If there is singleness of thought abiding in that 'which is not born and does not die', without pursuing sound and form, this is 'going against the stream'; this is called 'looking into the hua t'ou' or 'turning inwards the hearing to hear the self-nature'."
(Hsu Yun: http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/chan_sessions2.html )

"The bodhi mind is replete within us. If we look for it elsewhere, we will not find it. Just as a Chan patriarch said, “To move the mind is to err, to raise a thought is to stray.” As soon as we look for it we lose it; it is like looking for an ox while riding an ox; we are already sitting on its back, but we do not know it. It is also like looking for a shadow at midday. At this moment, when you are listening to this teaching, the mind that does not raise a single thought is the profound and clear bodhi mind. A mind with no-thought is the mind of total clarity, knowing, and awareness, without a single bit of delusion, drowsiness, or scattered thoughts. When we realize this mind that is unborn and undying, we attain enlightenment."
(Wei Chueh: http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

"Since all dharmas are like dreams or phantoms, deluded thoughts are originally calm and the sense-spheres are originally void. At the point where all dharmas are void, the numinous awareness is not obscured. That is to say, this mind of void and calm, numinous awareness is your original face. It is also the dharma-seal transmitted without a break by all the Buddhas of the three time periods, the successive generations of patriarchs, and the wise advisors of this world. If you awaken to this mind, then this is truly what is called not following the rungs of a ladder: you climb straight to the stage of Buddhahood, and each step transcends the triple world."
(Pojo Jinul: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=12572 in "Collected Works of Chinul", p 145)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism beyond the nation state
Content:
Astus wrote:
I prefer the linguistic-cultural differentiation. That often connects with national ideas but not necessarily. By the way, as I know there is a complete Mongolian canon, while there are no full Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese translations.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
It is true that his interpretation is opposed to yours, but I think his is correct, which is why I quoted it. Suzuki would never propose a 'universal substance', the fact that you read his quotation like that indicates an intepretive problem in my opinion.

Astus wrote:
It is opposed to what I say if it claims a universal substance ("it is what makes these things possible; it is zero full of infinite possibilities, it is a void of inexhaustible contents"). But if he means what Nagarjuna says I can only agree: "Those for whom emptiness is possible, for them everything is possible. Those for whom emptiness is not possible, for them everything is not possible." (MMK 24.14)

jeeprs said:
What I mean is that 'the chain of dependent origination' cannot be described in scientific or even objective terms. It is a metaphysical concept.

Astus wrote:
You can't describe the joy of dancing in objective or scientific terms but it doesn't make it metaphysical in its philosophical sense. Dependent origination can be called "Buddhist metaphysics" if you want, as the ontological basis of the universe as causal processes. But unlike philosophy, the teachings are not meant to find the true reality of the world but to bring about liberation, and therefore every teachings is provisional (unlike in metaphysics).

jeeprs said:
the nearest to the Buddhist term for 'mind' would undoubtedly be the nous of neo-Platonism

Astus wrote:
Mind in Buddhism is understood only as a stream, as momentary successions of mental phenomena. It is dependently originated. It is not a background, basis or container of mental events, but the mental events themselves. So it doesn't seem to fit the idea of nous.

jeeprs said:
Certainly Zen criticizes metaphysics, but only insofar as it has become a verbal representation of non-conceptual realities, or a dogma (dṛṣṭi).

Astus wrote:
There are views (dṛṣṭi) and there is correct view (samyagdṛṣṭi).

Q: What is the right view? 
A: To perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever is the right view.

Q: What does "to perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever" mean? 
A: Perceiving all sorts of things without grasping -- that is, not being clouded by the arising of any thought of love or hate, etc. -- is perceiving without any objects. If one can see without seeing any object whatsoever, that is using the Buddha-Eye, which is like no other eye. On the other hand, if one sees all sorts of things that cause thoughts of love and hate, etc., to arise, that is known as "perceiving objects" with ordinary eyes, and sentient beings have no other kind of eyes. This is true, likewise, with all of the other sense organs.
(Ta-Chu Hui-Hai: Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

It is not that one does not recognise and know what one perceives, but one is not moved by them, there is no attachment or aversion.

jeeprs said:
Othewise why put yourself through the arduous hardships of learning Zen?

Astus wrote:
Disillusionment.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
Buddhism rejects 'speculative metaphysics', but the teaching is nevertheless metaphysical.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by metaphysics here?

jeeprs said:
As this state cannot be understood by the worldly mind, it can only be described in negative terms, but it is not mere absence, mere cessation.

Astus wrote:
So, either one has a non-worldly mind or one doesn't say anything meaningful. Do you see how that undermines what you or anyone says?

jeeprs said:
I will quote the passage from Suzuki again:

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is the negation of substance and affirmation of dependent origination. Suzuki's quote sounds like he interprets emptiness as a universal substance, and that is contrary to the very meaning of emptiness.

jeeprs said:
However 'higher states' or 'higher truths' are imperceptible to the verbal/symbolic mind. Hence the emphasis in Buddhism on dhyana which is, among other things, the suspension of discursive thinking.

Astus wrote:
From the second dhyana on there is no discursive thinking, however, rarely any Mahayana school or teacher emphasises deep absorptions. Also, while calming meditation does not require conceptual thinking, insight practice does. That is, you cannot reach liberation without actually understanding how the mind works. And that understanding is not some mystical revelation or state, it is looking at things and seeing them for what they are. If one just suspends discursive thinking the result is a blank vegetative stare and a dumb mind. This is what Dahui criticised as "silent illumination", and this is how Chan is misinterpreted in Tibet as Hashan's heresy. This negation of discursive thinking is mistaking emptiness for nothingness.

jeeprs said:
But this negation ought not to be interpreted as referring to mere nothingness, non-being, simple absence, or cessation, in itself. It simply acts as the 'gateless gate' to the higher realm (which is actually 'this realm' seen without the habitual conditions and verbal associations through which we habitually see it).

Astus wrote:
It is not nothingness but in order to see clearly one has to nevertheless remove thinking. If you are saying that one should not be attached to concepts and ideas, I agree. If you mean that one should stop thinking completely, the above applies.

jeeprs said:
And it is not a part of that web, because it can never be 'brought down' to the level of symbolic mind and representational consciousness.

Astus wrote:
Words are just words. An apple is not identical to a noun. Is that mystical?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
The reason it is put in such oblique terms is so as not to create a verbal representation of it, which becomes an idol. That is Buddhism's distinct difference from 'the atman believers' and many other religious types.

Astus wrote:
You mean, in your interpretation the only difference between Buddhism and atmavada teachings is that Buddhism fails to speak plainly and straightforwardly about it? The idea sounds to me similar to those who claim that Buddhism says nothing about God but one can just believe in whatever supreme deity one likes to; while actually there are numerous teachings refuting the possibility of such a being.

As for the atman vs anatman issue, http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=10864 is now available again for reading.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Scriptural Reference For This?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is also a logical problem with that hypothetical quote. And that is it would only serve as a deterrent for those who want enlightenment, it would be demotivating. In later Mahayana teachings there are talks about the Dharma ending age where enlightenment is near impossible, however, there is always a special teaching that one should use instead of the others and that guarantees success.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
desertman001 said:
Astus, the quotes provided by jeepers make it obvious that some type of mind exists after the conditioned, without claiming an atman exist, since no separate existence is implied. I get the logic you imply but that  logic cannot escape the conditioned.
If the unconditioned state is unaware how could it be any different from sleep. If that state has no awareness why are we even talking about it as relief from stress?

Astus wrote:
This radical separation of conditioned and unconditioned is what I'm calling false and not established. Appearances are already empty as they are, they don't need to be emptied nor one needs to switch to an empty state.

Awareness cannot be cut off from what it is aware of. An independent mind cannot exist because it would have no connection to anything and it couldn't know of anything. It doesn't mean that everybody is unconscious. Quite the opposite. Consciousness exists together with all forms of phenomena, it is present in every experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
Your position reads like the Sautrântika view, i.e., nirvana/asamskrita is abhava (absence of klesas, etc.) being essentially nothing in and for itself which, I hasten to point out, Buddhaghosa attacked like a junkyard dog unchained, arguing that for an arahant it would amount to mere extinction which is a no-no. It appears that Stephen Batchelor has taken the Sautrântiaka position with regard to nirvana/asamskrita. I find it interesting.

Astus wrote:
What relevance is there of two Hinayana systems - those that believe nirvana to have svabhava - and the ideas of a materialist? Look at Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise, and what it says in chapter 25 on nirvana is what I mean too.

"The phenomenal universe and Nirvana, activity and motionless placidity - all are of the one 'substance'. So also are the worlds and with the state that transcends worlds. Yes, the beings passing through the six stages of existence, those who have undergone the four kinds of birth, all the vast world-systems with their mountains and river, the Bodhi-Nature and illusion - all of them are thus. By saying that they are all of one substance, we mean that their names and forms, their existence and nonexistence, are void. The great world-systems, uncountable as Ganga's sands, are in truth comprised in the one boundless void. Then where can there be Buddhas who deliver or sentient beings to be delivered? When the true nature of all things that 'exist' is an identical Thusness, how can such distinctions have any reality?"
(The Zen Teaching of Huang-Po, p. 109)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Scriptural Reference For This?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Using that simile of the tip of the fingernail occurs in various suttas, like these titled Nakhasikha Sutta (The Tip of the Fingernail): SN 13.1; SN 20.2; SN 22.97. But most of the similes are found in SN 56 (Sacca-samyutta): 51 and from 60 to 131. However, none of them is about enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
How to account for sayings such as the Nibbana Sutta?

I have always thought it was the insight into this 'unborn' which constitutes kensho. That is why I understand the symbol for prajñāpāramitā to be the letter 'a-'. which signifies un-, and in 'unborn, unfabricated'.

Astus wrote:
That Nibbana Sutta has been misused by atman believers so often. While in fact all it says is that by the elimination of desire suffering does not arise any more. And that's an unconditioned "state" as there is no cause of pain any more. But not actually a state that is achieved or developed or discovered, otherwise it would be conditioned.

As I said before, it's not possible to find an unconditioned state, because finding it makes it conditioned. What is always instructed in Zen is to let go of conceptual and emotional attachments, to see that they are empty of substance and exist dependently. There is nothing else to be found beyond that.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Title: Re: Whose Buddhism is Truest? The quest for "Original Buddhi
Content:
Astus wrote:
Another thing is that the article over-emphasise the importance of the Gandharan findings. We knew that there were various traditions of transmission. Even a thousand years ago they knew it. What modern scholarship found by comparing the Agamas and Nikayas is that there are lot of things shared in them, proving how connected the different traditions are, and that talking about a group of fundamental teachings ("original Buddhism") is not unfounded. It is also unlikely that those who are lost blind in their chosen traditions' claims of superiority will care about what scholars not within their tradition say.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
desertman001,

You talk as if there were something unconditioned outside of the conditioned. If that were the case, as conditioned beings we'd had nothing to do with it at all. Thus such an unconditioned has no relevance to any of us.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 12th, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
desertman001 said:
Astus, when I said "at its core" back on page one, I have to say the experience of recognizing Mind as having unconditioned   nature is also why I  called it a "core".  This insight passes but it can take a portion of  the self concept with it and leaves with you  a permanent( if practice continues) effect. It also also allows you recognize true nature just by returning to the moment because "this mind is Buddha". Whether it is halucunation or recognizing true nature it is both an experience and a continuing recognition when in the moment. So to your question "How can a sense of unity with every being or the entire world make a difference in our attachment to thoughts and emotions? " I would say if the Kensho rises to a certain level it creates a new view, less bound by self identification and able recognize nature as unconditioned .

Astus wrote:
This idea that there is something at the core is the basic self-view, the belief in substance. As the metaphor of the http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Plantain_tree illustrates, there is no core. The mind itself is made up of various instances of consciousness. What is called insight is the insight into the emptiness of phenomena, i.e. that they are without core, without self, without essence. And this unborn nature (unborn because there is no "thing" to become or cease) is the unconditioned, the fact that everything is conditioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:
Indrajala said:
Funny one of the prominent Zhenyan teachers in Taiwan, who has revised a lot of material, told me in person he thinks what Koyasan is teaching nowadays isn't real Mijiao/Mikkyo.

I don't know what to make of that, but he has a sizeable following and the practices clearly work for him and his disciples.

However, what I'm asking really is a matter of theory and in my mind a good question given the cultural dynamics at work. Someone might ask why bother, but I like exploring possibilities.

Astus wrote:
In theory people give whatever explanation they like. In practice history decides which theories become generally accepted. "Tradition" only means that something survived for some time, it doesn't give it any authenticity.

Since the rules of Tantra require transmission you need to connect yourself in one way or another to a lineage. It's like Western Zen teachers who are nominally connected to this or that Japanese school but actually their teach is more or less modified. If that Mantra teacher in Taiwan has connection to Shingon but later changed this or that, the link to the original school remains but he ceases to be its representative.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: pre-Buddhism?
Content:
Anders said:
If nothing else, the Buddhist texts also tell us that there were other views of reincarnation current in the Buddha's day, given the Buddha's commentary on these.

Astus wrote:
Reincarnation is said to be known in the Magadha culture, but that's different from the Brahmanic-Vedic culture. Since it was Buddhism that spread out in India (empire of Ashoka) it served as the medium of the doctrine.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: pre-Buddhism?
Content:
philji said:
There has been some talk here about reincarnation being introduced into Hinduism BT Buddhism. however ado not the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita pre date Buddhism? These texts  specifically teach the concept of an atman reincarnating. The Buddhist view of course is very different.

Astus wrote:
The Bhagavad Gita's current form was settled around the 4th century CE, although parts of it are assumed to be as old as the 5th c. BCE. The early Upanishads don't describe reincarnation but rather a path of the soul to Brahman through different stages (Sun and Moon).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: The costs of different Buddhist traditions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Traditions don't have costs. Only one's practice has. If one is content with keeping some precepts, that has a low cost in terms of money and time. If you spend some time with formal practices, that has a time cost. If you go to retreats, that costs time and money. If you by books and/or go to teachings, that costs time and money, but if you do that online the costs are lower in money but not in time. If you buy Buddhist paraphernalia that costs money but not much time. And if you become a home leaver that has practically no cost in money but all your time.

It is perfectly possible to do low cost Vajrayana. A single transmission can be enough to give you all that you need for your practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 5:31 PM
Title: Re: pre-Buddhism?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Hmmmmm... Interesting!  Funny thing is that currently it is such a central teaching and add the fact that most Westerners know/understand reincarnation from a "Hindu" (atman-centred) perspective, that it seems bizarre that it was a concept that was introduced into "Hinudism".

Astus wrote:
I can't specify a source for this one, whether it is from India or not, but the idea of reincarnation was known to Europeans to some extent before the 19th century rise of Orientalism. In the ancient Greek context it is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis and in Judaism it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul. It is also known in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism#Posthumous_lives.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm no representative of any school, so I'm just sharing my thoughts on this.

Generally all practices have their own transmission. Even if abhiseka is not involved, such things as breath-meditation are taught differently by various masters and lineages. Learning breath-meditation from a Rinzai Zen teacher is not the same as the Tendai style (although related), not the same as it is taught in Burmese Theravada or the Thai Forest tradition. Knowing one form of breath-meditation doesn't mean you know all of them. Similarly, if you get one form of Vairocana empowerment it doesn't include all the other Vairocana related practices. Shingon and Tibetan Vajrayana are two distinct lineages and naturally they have various differences in their methods, so you can't presume that learning one includes the other.

From a personal point of view, everybody does whatever he likes. If you feel connected to Vairocana and you want to do practices that are found in Shingon nobody will stop you. If you make up your own Vairocana meditation, who can say it's all wrong? What you can't do, however, is to claim authority as if you were a specific Shingon or Sakyapa or XY school's lineage holder. Of course you can still say you are this or that kind of Shingon/Tantra master/yogi, whatnot, since that doesn't mean any actual lineage. But as long as you don't try to set up your own school and gather followers nobody will care, except if you start posing on the forum as some sort of authority figure (but that is again the position of a master).

So, if you want to follow the traditional, mainstream path, you need the necessary empowerments, teachers, etc. If you are content with your own interpretation, you are free to do as you like (i.e. the Buddhist police won't arrest you and burn you at the stake).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: pre-Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
From a Buddhist perspective, the Buddha only discovered what was known before him by previous buddhas. And, as mentioned, there were pratyekabuddhas when the Dharma was generally extinct.

As for the idea that Buddhism is some sort of offshoot of Hinduism, not at all. For instance, today reincarnation is a core element of Hinduism, however, it was most likely originally spread by Buddhism in India. In the Buddhist canon itself you get a nice description of the local religions, and that consisted mostly of various ascetic orders, among them the Jainas being the most outstanding, the old pantheon of gods that can be connected to the Vedas and generally to Indo-European paganism, and there were the brahmanas doing their rituals. What appears today as Hinduism, that's quite a different story.

You may want to look into some studies in this area, like those of Johannes Bronkhorst:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=4GNG5KuH73QC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=BaX58-E5-3MC


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 8th, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: People's reaction to presence
Content:
Astus wrote:
If you want to move this discussion into a Buddhist context, I recommend you reconsider your thoughts and views in light of this essential teaching: http://www.tsoknyirinpoche.org/2575/web-teaching-i-2/.

And I advise that because it seems to me that you have found yourself a level of inner peace, perhaps some special experience, and now you strongly identify with that. It can be a good beginning, if you don't stop there.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 8th, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Commonalities among all Buddhist traditions
Content:
rachmiel said:
Dependent Origination
Eightfold Path
Five Precepts
Five Skandhas
Four Dharma Seals
Four Noble Truths
Karma
The Three Universal Seals
Three Jewels
Threefold training of Precepts, Meditation and Wisdom
Twelve Links of Dependent Origination

Astus wrote:
A few more:

12 ayatanas & 18 dhatus
5/6 realms
37 factors of enlightenment
liberation as arhat, pratyekabuddha, buddha

Basically you can take everything that were taught in the Vinaya and Agama/Nikaya as common teachings. The first strong differences occurred with the various abhidharma works and then other developments like the Bodhisattva/Vaipulya Pitaka, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 7th, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Violence in late period Indian Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
I recall stories of Indian masters where they debated with tirthikas and it got violent. Alas, I can't find sources now to give names. But it'd show that it's not necessarily connected to Vajrayana.
(not what I wanted, but for instance in Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India (p 30) Sankaracarya kills himself after losing in debate to Dharmakirti)

From the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Adamantine Body chapter):

"One who upholds Wonderful Dharma does not receive the five precepts and practise deportment, but protects with the sword, bow, arrow, and halberd those bhiksus who uphold the precepts and who are pure."

"The eternal body of the Tathagata is one carved in stone, as it were." The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "O good man! For that reason, bhiksus, bhiksunis, upasakas, upasikas should all the more make effort and protect Wonderful Dharma. The reward for protecting Wonderful Dharma is extremely great and innumerable. O good man! Because of this, those upasakas who protect Dharma should take the sword and staff and protect such a bhiksu who guards Dharma. Even though a person upholds the precepts, we cannot call that person one who upholds Mahayana. Even though a person has not received [in formal ceremony] the five precepts, if he protects Wonderful Dharma, such a one can well be called one of Mahayana. A person who upholds the Wonderful Dharma should take the sword and staff and guard bhiksus." Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! If all bhiksus are to be accompanied by such upasakas with the sword and staff, can we say that they are worthy of the name, or are they unworthy of such? Or is this upholding the precepts or not?" The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Do not say that such persons are those who transgress the precepts. O good man! After I have entered Nirvana, the world will be evil-ridden and the land devastated, each pillaging the other, and the people will be driven by hunger. At such a time, because of hunger, men may make up their minds, abandon home and enter the Sangha. Such persons are bogus priests. Such, on seeing those persons who are strict in their observance of the precepts, right in their deportment, and pure in their deeds, upholding Wonderful Dharma, will drive such away or kill them or cause harm to them." Bodhisattva Kasyapa said again to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! How can all such persons upholding the precepts and guarding Wonderful Dharma get into villages and castle towns and teach?" "O good man! That is why I allow those who uphold the precepts to be accompanied by the white-clad people [lay people, non-monks] with the sword and staff. Although all kings, ministers, rich lay men [grhapati] and upasakas may possess the sword and staff for protecting Dharma, I call this upholding the precepts. You may possess the sword and staff, "but do not take life". If things are thus, we call this first-hand upholding of the precepts."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 7th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Classifying Schools
Content:
Astus wrote:
Would you exclude Vajrayana from Mahayana? Shingon was removed from the Tibetan area years ago because they are two different systems with different history, and it was suggested by some Shingon followers who found the unending comparisons and such with Tibetan Vajrayana tiresome (IIRC). Tibetan and East Asian exist separately because they are distinct historical developments of Mahayana with several significant differences between the two, while the two groups share a lot within their own area. If anyone wants to discuss this topic about the differences between major Mahayana groups please open a topic for it in the Mahayana forum.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 7th, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Title: Re: Practice of the Lotus Sutra?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra emphasises a few Mahayana ideas (skilful means, one vehicle, eternal buddha, sudden transformation, bodhisattva compassion) that became important. In East Asia the sutra's position was elevated because of Zhiyi, actual founder of the Tiantai school, who used it as frame for his synthesising ideas. It is because the sutra says very little about actual methods that one can just interpret it in dozens of ways. As for its repeated statement about its own superiority, the same you find in many other Mahayana sutras, and the same goes for the injunction to read, recite, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 6th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
Astus wrote:
The first Bhavanakrama of Kamalasila also uses the Lankavatara quote where the four yogas are mentioned in explaining vipasyana. The Bhavanakrama is also referred to in the 3rd Karmapa's commentary (Mining for Wisdom in Confusion, p264 and related note: 683 on p422).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 6th, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics at a national level
Content:
Astus wrote:
Nations don't exist outside of the imagination of people. Nations don't make decisions, nations don't do anything, only people do. And people simply means many individual humans. Ethical behaviour is possible only for individuals, because they can make choices and have views. If a person identifies with the concept of a nation it is accepting a community as one's own, and that includes the rules of that community. It is subjecting oneself to an ideology, the ideology of nationhood. This ideology can be used by those who are accepted as leaders within the same framework of community. Whether nations "do" this or that depends on each person's thinking. Since many are happy to relinquish the burden of thinking for himself in matters that don't directly concern him, leaders are invested with making decisions for those. But again, leaders are humans just like everyone else, and they make decisions based on their own thinking.

Buddhism exists also on the ideological level. And just as people can believe in nationhood, they can also do that with Buddhism. Of course, it has to be simple and easy, because unless one has strong interest in something, they don't care to ponder about abstract doctrines. That killing and stealing is bad is generally self-evident for everyone. The trick is that people can always come up with exceptions, or don't think of something as actually murder or theft. There is also a huge lack of general understanding about how emotions could be correctly managed. And it is this area, handling emotions, where Buddhism can provide useful and practical methods. But first it is important to establish the idea that emotions can actually be managed.

Jumping to unclear concepts of metaphysical entities like nations makes one lose sight of the daily reality. As I said, nations don't actually do anything, therefore they can't have any ethics either. Only living people can act in ethical and unethical ways.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 6th, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics at a national level
Content:
Astus wrote:
About the need of armies and killing:

The last time Hungary was attacked was in the 16th century by the Ottoman Empire, and (unsurprisingly) most of the country got occupied until the end of the 17th century. Mostly before and after that the army was used to attack other countries. It seems to me that the whole concept of "you need weapons to defend yourself" is wrong and mistaken. Just as on a personal level there are certain individuals who are intent on killing, occasionally there are military leaders who want to conquer the world. But just as the majority of humans don't run around murdering others, countries rarely rise to take over everyone else's lands.

It might be that in the USA it is OK for the police to shoot people, but that is not normal in most European countries. Death sentence in the EU is also abolished.

I believe it is possible to have the law of non-violence and other basic Buddhist values govern a society. That's what the rule of a Cakravartin is about. And while there are wars on Earth even now, billions of people live in peace.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 5th, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Absolute teaching
Content:
Sönam said:
I don't think 4NT can ONLY lead to Arhat Attainment

Astus wrote:
This means that there is only one kind of attainment and distinguishing arhats, pratyekabuddhas and buddhas have no relevance. The prevailing Mahayana interpretation is that the sravaka attainments are only skilful means, temporary, and what everyone eventually reaches is buddhahood. This is the One Vehicle concept. Theravada (and some Yogacara) says that while in terms of liberation arhats and buddhas are equal, there is a qualitative difference in terms of the buddhas ability to restart the wheel of Dharma and other supernatural things.

Not that I'm against this interpretation that there is only one sort of liberation and everything else are just skilful means. But it should be clear that this contravenes all the many schools' statements about their superiority (which I believe is a good thing, sectarianism is quite a bad illness).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 5th, 2013 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Absolute teaching
Content:
Sönam said:
My point, precisely, deferes on that. What I highlight in that thread is that 4 NT IS, after elightenment, the direct introduction, ultimate teaching of Buddha Shakyamuni ... then 8 fold path is sravakas and so on as you explain.

Astus wrote:
In general Mahayana texts assign the four noble truths as the primary teaching of sravakas. It means that those with the so called sravaka attitude - because in Mahayana it is simply a wrong approach, not a specific school or teaching - focus only on eliminating suffering, removing themselves from this world, and abiding in nirvana, because they don't understand how both samsara and nirvana are empty, and that is represented by the four noble truths.

The eightfold path is the fourth truth, and the first of the eightfold path is the four noble truths. You can't really take them apart as they mutually include each other.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 5th, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Absolute teaching
Content:
Ramon1920 said:
What point were you trying to get across by that quote Astus?

Astus wrote:
That the essential message of the Buddha is not in any specific doctrine but the experience of liberation. One can emphasise the four noble truths (sravaka), dependent origination (pratyekabuddha), six paramitas (bodhisattva), four samadhis (Tiantai), four dharmadhatus (Huayan), wordless transmission (Chan), empowerments (Tantra), or any other aspect, even without mentioning anything else, as long as it results in liberation, it is the "absolute teaching". This is the meaning of the one vehicle teaching expounded in the Srimala Devi and other similar sutras.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 4th, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Absolute teaching
Content:
Astus wrote:
As the Srimala Devi Sutra says, there is only one truth that is the ultimate among the four, the truth of extinction.

“The one noble truth, namely, ‘the extinction of suffering,’ is separate from the conditioned. What is ‘separate from the conditioned’ is permanent. What is ‘permanent’ is not false and deceptive in nature. What is ‘not false and deceptive in nature’ is true, permanent, and a refuge. Therefore, the noble truth of the extinction [of suffering] is the supreme truth.” (tr. Diana Y. Paul)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 4th, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Grasping and Self
Content:
jeeprs said:
So, do that mean that if we 'see things as there are', there is no beauty?

So the teaching of impermanence is an antidote to clinging to such temporal things.

Astus wrote:
It means that beauty is a concept. It is not the same as denying that we think something is beautiful, but pointing to the fact that it is only a thought. You may compare the Buddhist understanding of insubstantial beauty with the Platonic "ideal beauty". The Platonic explanation is quite a good representation of how ordinary people relate to beauty. And yes, the whole purpose of the entire Buddhist teaching is to liberate one from attachment as that is the cause of suffering.

jeeprs said:
Well, I agree - there is a lovely word from medieval philosophy, 'haeccity', which Wikipedia translates as
It is directly comparable with the Buddhist notion of 'Tathatā' or 'suchness', which again according to Wikipedia:

Astus wrote:
It seems to be related to the concept of "svalaksana" (individual/particular attributes) that is contrasted with samanyalaksana (shared/universal attributes), as described in Buddhist epistemology.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Grasping and Self
Content:
rachmiel said:
I'm having trouble understanding this, on two counts:

Astus wrote:
Momentariness is one classical way in Buddhism to express it, but let me rephrase it then. What a "beautiful sunset" is is simply a concept, and idea. And as every idea, it is complex and dependent, that is, it requires several other ideas to be meaningful. Nobody ever sees any "beautiful sunset". The eye has no such concept, no understanding of what the changing colours and forms are, it doesn't even know what colour is. It is a mental interpretation that there is a "beautiful sunset". The eye has no memory, it cannot connect one moment with the next one, therefore it is unable to perceive any motion. The eye also has no aesthetic evaluation of anything whatsoever, and cannot tell the difference between beautiful and ugly. So, again, a "beautiful sunset" is nothing but a concept. And if we look at concepts, we see that they don't stay in our minds but rapidly change. Also, a concept has no meaning in and of itself, it is not something actually graspable. Nevertheless, because we imagine that there is such a thing out there as a "beautiful sunset", we fail to see things for what they are, and in our ignorance have grasping at illusory ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Comprehensive List of Meditation Styles
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to me you are not looking for a list of Buddhist meditations but rather all sorts of religious activities done in Buddhism. And that actually includes the entirety of Buddhism, like taking refuge, prostrations, reading, contemplating and listening to teachings, chanting, observing precepts, various rituals, freeing animals, and so on. Meditation is only a smaller part of those activities, and it is different from reciting texts, saying prayers, performing rituals, thinking about teachings, etc. Meditation is about actively calming (shamatha) and understanding (vipashyana) the mind with the purpose of attaining liberation. While for instance copying a sutra is a merit making activity, in itself it doesn't lead to seeing clearly the true nature of mind, and it doesn't even bring about any level of absorption, thus it is not a meditative practice, although it is certainly a Buddhist religious activity.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Comprehensive List of Meditation Styles
Content:
Roland said:
What about deity practices? There are so many and there are different variations according to different traditions and lineages.

Astus wrote:
They usually follow the same steps. There are only a few varieties and maybe a couple of exceptions.

Consult books like Jamgon Kongrul's "The Treasury Of Knowledge" (especially The Elements Of Tantric Practice, but also Systems Of Buddhist Tantra and Esoteric Instructions); Jeffrey Hopkins: Tantric Techniques; Daniel Cozort: Highest Yoga Tantra; Dharmachakra Translation Comittee: Deity, Mantra, and Wisdom; etc. if you are more interested.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Comprehensive List of Meditation Styles
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I no longer think that trying to force practices into categories will be productive.

Astus wrote:
Or you should use proper analysis. If a term like "phowa" includes various practices, it means it is not a single meditation method but rather a package of methods. It's like a Happy Meal. You have to dissect them, otherwise the toy will be confused with the hamburger.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Condensed Summarization of Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are numerous ways to sum up the teachings. In the Pali Canon you can find many suttas where the Buddha is asked to give a brief instruction. They are generally insufficient for people with no knowledge of Buddhism. Therefore, there is what is called http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/index.html, that the Dhammapada quote above covers.

Don't do evil, do good: Dana (generosity), Sila (virtue)
Result: Sagga (heaven)
Tame the mind: Adinava (drawbacks), Nekkhamma (renunciation)
Path and result: Four Noble Truths

If you want something less complicated, you can use the concept of "interbeing" or "dependent origination" as the cardinal doctrine of Buddhism. It is the best of you pick something that you can elaborate on if required. It doesn't matter if it's about ethics, meditation or wisdom, since all of them are connected to the other parts.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: Grasping and Self
Content:
rachmiel said:
Ignorance -> push/pull -> reification of self (and other sundry nasties)

Astus wrote:
Not that linear. The moment one sees something as permanent (persisting from moment to moment) there is grasping. Although one can differentiate between that kind of subtle attachment and emotional clinging that comes after that. Thus in Mahayana they talk about grasping at self (emotional hindrance) and grasping at dharmas (conceptual hindrance).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Title: Re: Comprehensive List of Meditation Styles
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let me point to some problems.

Take buddha-remembrance (nianfo/nenbutsu) as an example.

The Amitayurdhyana Sutra (aka Visualisation Sutra) describes 13 methods. They are visualisations of various objects. But the tradition knows several other objects one could visualise, and the visualisation can be combined with different postures and movements. These are practices related to the Amitabha. Also, in the Pure Land tradition of East Asia the most common understanding of buddha-remembrance is not a visualisation practice but the recitation of the name. Reciting the name also has many forms and styles. Another factor is that not only those who consider themselves Pure Land practitioners use these practices but almost everyone. Also, Mahayana has several other buddhas, and they all have their own visualisations and recitations. That is, in the single category of buddha-remembrance there are numerous practices and interpretations of the practices. The single common feature is that they are all related to a specific buddha or bodhisattva. Just to complicate things, buddha-remembrance also means recalling the virtues of the Buddha (Shakyamuni), as it is used in Theravada, and it is more like an inspirational contemplation rather than a focused repetition or visualisation. Adding another factor, buddha-remembrance can also mean abiding in the buddha-mind, that is again not a typical meditation technique.

Thus, in this single term one can encompass so many things that talking about it as if it were a single method is being blind to the complexities that are actually there. That's why I asked if there is any definition of "meditation", because you can't really put all those methods into the categories of shamatha and vipashyana, and even specific traditions don't view all forms of buddha-remembrance as meditative practices.

If you want to follow traditional categories, you should look at the major meditation handbooks, like the Visuddhimagga, the Mohezhiguan and the Bhavanakrama. Theravada distinguishes samatha and vipassana, while Mahayana adds to this their combined practice (which doesn't mean that in actual practice it is not known in Theravada). If you want to encompass other meditation related practices, you can add to those three a fourth as preliminary practices conducive to meditation. Otherwise, as it shows in the current list posted previously, it won't be a list of meditation techniques but rather of various schools.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Comprehensive List of Meditation Styles
Content:
Astus wrote:
Do you have a working definition of "meditation"? So that it becomes possible to consider styles.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 1st, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Shingon and Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Anders said:
Isn't it possible to ressurrect it the same way the original lineages presumably started? Ie, a Buddha or mahasattva emanating to start a line, or a yogin receiving such abisheka by virtue of having the siddhis to communicate with such beings?

The impression I get is that this was more or less what Hsu Yun did when he ressurected the Guiyang school of Chan and passed it on to Hsuan Hua.

Astus wrote:
Good question. In Tibetan Buddhism there are both long and short lineages, and visionary empowerments and connections are accepted. Even the old lineages start with some buddha or bodhisattva manifesting for someone.

In Chan it's a bit different. One can claim distant lineage connection based on personal affiliation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 1st, 2013 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Vairochana
Content:
Astus wrote:
The role of different characters can change depending on the text and tradition. A good example is Vajrapani who in early texts is a spirit (yaksha), then a protector deity (dharmapala), then a bodhisattva, then in certain tantras a buddha and finally in later tantras reverted into a less important position. Vairochana, just like other buddhas (e.g. Akshobhya), once had his own devotional system, then he was rendered into a metaphysical symbol, again to be put into a lesser position in later tantras (one of the five dhyani buddhas) and superseded by Samantabhadra (in Nyingma) and Vajradhara (e.g. in Kagyu).

While it is often forgotten, Buddhism lived and spread not only via concepts, meditation and famous teachers, but the cults of buddhas and bodhisattvas was (and still is) an important element. Richard D. McBride in https://books.google.hu/books?id=XpUyLqQ26ioC explores exactly this. Therefore, just as certain doctrines and practices changed, so did the rituals and the importance and meaning of deities.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 31st, 2013 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
Astus wrote:
Gampopa taught about the mind in three aspects (Confusion Arises as Wisdom, p 212-213):
In relation to cutting through the perceiving mind, Rinpoche taught three aspects: the mind‘s characteristics (1), essence (2), and nature(3).

(1) The mind has two characteristics: it appears as various colorful, outer forms, and it emits various positive and negative mental states.
(2) What is meant by the ―essence of the mind‖ is your own awareness, that which you think of as ―I‖ or ―me.‖ The essence of the mind is clarity-emptiness. It cannot be pinpointed, yet it never ends. Awareness is baseless, fresh, naked, and spontaneous.
(3) You need to understand that the essence of the mind and its radiance as various thoughts and emotions are not two different things. When you understand that the essence and characteristics of the mind are naturally inseparable, this is called the nature. When you realize what this means, it is the heart essence of all the buddhas of the three times. This nature is present within all beings.
That is, there are all the internal and external appearances, there is the essence as empty awareness, and these are not two separate things at all. In a similar fashion, in Madhyamaka there is the conventional truth of appearances, the ultimate truth of emptiness, and the two truths are not separate from each other. It is famously summed up in the Heart Sutra as "form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

Vasubandhu explains in the Madhyantavibhaga (tr. Kochumuttom) this way:
(v3)
Neither void nor non-void :
So is everything described,
That indeed is the middle path,
For there is existence as well as non-existence,
And again existence.

That indeed is the middle path, for, on the one hand, there is the existence of emptiness within the imagination of the unreal, and, on the other, the existence of the imagination of the unreal within the emptiness. It is therefore neither exclusively void nor exclusively non-void.

(v14)
There is the negation of the pair of the graspable and grasper. The definition of emptiness, then, is the assertion of that negation. Thus, it is shown how the emptiness is to be defined in negative terms. And, what those negative terms are, [is further stated] :

It is neither [total] assertion,
Nor [total] negation.

Why not [total] assertion ? Because there is the negation of the pair of subject and object. Why not [total] negation ? I Because there is the assertion of the negation of that pair. This indeed is the definition of the emptiness. Therefore, with
reference to the imagination of the unreal, the emptiness is :

Neither different from the imagination of the unreal,
Nor identical with the imagination of the unreal.

If different, it would imply that the 'universal' (dharmata) is other than the particular things [dharmas] , which is unacceptable. For example, 'impermanence' is not other than the impermanent things, and the state of suffering is not other than suffering itself. If identical, there would be no place for purifying knowledge, nor would there be the commonplace knowledge. Thus is shown a definition which states that emptiness is that which is free from being different from thatness.
The Yogacara teaching of the three natures gives a different perspective on the attainment of non-dual wisdom. By the elimination of the imagined (perceiving appearances as substantial) from the dependent (i.e. dependent origination) one realises the accomplished (the middle way). In the Trisvabhavanirdesa (tr. Kochumuttom) Vasubandhu uses the example of the conjured elephant:
It is like the magical power,
Which by the working of incantations
Appears in the nature of an elephant;
There is altogether no elephant at all
But only its form.

The elephant stands for the imagined nature,
Its form for the other-dependent nature,
And, that which remains when the elephant has been negated,
Stands for the absolutely accomplished nature.

So, the imagination of the unreal
By the working of the basic thought
Appears in the nature of duality;
There is altogether no duality at all,
But only its form.
http://www.turtlehill.org/uttara/vasu.html (comment to v32) sums up the meaning: "Abandonment of commitment and attachment to imagined phenomena is achieved through the transcendence of instinctive assent to the imagined nature. The attainment of freedom is accomplished through the direct, immediate understanding of the unity of the three natures, and hence the non-dual awareness of all phenomena in their consummate nature."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
jeeprs said:
It is true that this nature ought not to be reified, but not to reify it is not to say that it is non-existent. It is neither 'something that exists' or 'non-existence', being beyond opposites.

Astus wrote:
The problem is with the idea: it. The four yogas described in Yogacara and Mahamudra show the path and the result. Objects are only products of the mind, mind itself is nothing real whatsoever, without both subject and object the correct realisation of suchness is there, but even that shouldn't be grasped. All four possibilities (is, isn't, both, neither) presuppose something what one can make statements about, and that is reification.

If you want a Zen take on it, look at the discourses of Huairang, Xuanjue and Shenhui in the Platform Sutra (ch. 7 & 8).

the master asked “Where have you come from?”
[Huairang] said, “Mount Song.”
The master said, “[No matter] what kind of thing, how would it come?”
[Huairang] said, “If you say it’s like a single thing, then you’re off the mark.”

[Xuanjue] said, “How can the birthless have a meaning?”
The master said, “If there is no meaning, who is it that discriminates?”
[Xuanjue] said, “Nor is discrimination a meaning.”

One day the master announced to the assembly, “I have a thing without head or tail, without name or title, without front or back. Do you know what it is?”
Shenhui came forth and said, “It is the fundamental source of the buddhas. It is my buddha-nature.” 
The master said, “I told you it was without name or title, but you have called it the fundamental source, the buddha-nature. You’ve just covered your head with thatch. You’ve become a follower with only discriminative understanding.”


jeeprs said:
That is 'natural' for us, and what needs to be surmounted or abandoned. You can't deny the fundamental distinction between the Buddhas and the unenlightened. Otherwise, how would there be any path or training? What would there be to teach?

Astus wrote:
Calling it "natural" or "ordinary" mind is simply a matter of terminology, and it is not meant for those who are not already familiar with Mahayana. Teachings like Mahamudra are not really entry level. The four noble truths already establish the path and its role, and both Yogacara and Mahamudra describe various stages from deluded to complete enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are two commentaries on the Dharmadhatuvibhaga's stanza defining the nature of phenomena. Go Lotsawa states how it is the pure mind-stream, the luminosity, and Rangjung Dorje shows how it is the same everywhere and explains the emptiness of the three svabhavas.

Furthermore, the defining characteristic of the nature of phenomena
Is suchness, which lacks any distinction
Between apprehender and apprehended,
Or [between] objects of designation and what designates them.

Go Lotsawa's commentary (Mining for Wisdom within Delusion", p 303):
Therefore, what is called "the nature of phenomena" is the continuum of the mind that is of one taste, just like the expanse of space, because all phenomena of samsara do not go beyond this nature either. With regard to this, some [say] that [the nature of phenomena] is either [suitable as] a nonimplicative negation [in the sense] of being the nonexistence of apprehender and apprehended or that it is suitable as an implicative negation [in the sense] of existing as this very nonexistence of nonduality. Though there are assertions of such [negations] being the nature of phenomena, here it is not like that because the commentary [by Vasubandhu] explains it to be nothing but the continuum of stainless mind. For the Mahayanasutralankara also says that it is the pure luminous mind:

Mind is held to be always luminous by nature,
Contaminated [only] by adventitious flaws.
Apart from the mind that is the nature of phenomena,
Another mind's luminosity in nature is not taught.
The Third Karmapa's commentary (p 229-230):
This is what was stated above: "The defining characteristic of the nature of phenomena is suchness, which lacks any distinction between apprehender and apprehended, or [between] objects of designation and what designates them." This is the perfect nature, for which numerous synonyms are given in all the sutras and tantras. Glorious Naropa says:

This very being empty is awareness, mind.
Also bodhicitta is just this.
The tathagata heart is nothing but this.
Great bliss is precisely this.

What is called "secret mantra" is just this.
The reality of valid cognition is exactly this.
The fourth empowerment is this.
Connate joy is nothing but this.

The paramitas are precisely this.
Unity is simply this.
Great Madhyamaka is solely this.
Vairocana is this.

Vajrasattva is simply this.
The sixth family is only this.
The buddha disposition is just this.
Many enumerations, such as these,
Which are stated in the sutras and tantras,
Are for the most part based on this.

As for the meaning of noble Nagarjuna's statement that all phenomena lack a nature, the nature of all phenomena is that they neither arise by nature nor cease by nature. For this reason, since they are not real as being permanent or extinct, coming or going, or one or different, they are free from reference points. Therefore, they are both "all phenomena" and "the lack of a nature." The enumerations [of this lack of nature] are "the lack of nature in terms of characteristics," "the lack qf nature in terms of arising," and "the ultimate lack of nature," which are taught in relation to the imaginary, {528} the dependent, and the perfect [natures], respectively. One should understand that all [kinds of] emptiness are also divisions [that are derived] from this.
As for extreme interpretations of annihilation and permanence, Taranatha rejects both (The Essence of Zhentong, p 19-20):
In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra others asked, “Aren’t the major and minor marks of the enlightened essence the same features as those of the soul of the extremists?” In response, it was explained [by the Buddha] that “These are not the same features because they are of emptiness.” So, it is said that this enlightened essence does not exist as real, and if these major and minor marks were to exist, then they would be from the system of the extremists. It is also said that like space, what is not established whatsoever is known as the “enlightened essence.”
However, the mere recognition of different kinds of emptiness as meaning the unreal and the non-existence of anything whatsoever without definition is the mental fault of fixating onto one’s own erroneous philosophical system. From the [Laṅkāvatāra-] sūtra it reads, “The reason why these are not the same features as the extremists is because of the manifestation of emptiness, not because these major and minor marks are not manifest.” So, the claim that the enlightened essence of the completely radiant major and minor marks is explained to be interpretive in meaning is reduced to a mere deception within the world of lies.
The claim that the [enlightened] essence is permanent as asserted within the system of the extremists is also reduced to a refutation within the Essence Sūtras. Moreover, it is not acceptable to assert that the meaning of permanence is the permanence of a continuum. This is because saṃsāra, the entire subject-object complex, is merely the permanence of a continuum. So, if the mere permanence of a continuum was sufficiently permanent, then all conditioned phenomena would have to be permanent.
Brünnholzl (In Praise of Dharmadhātu) has a section for the question "Is Buddha Nature an Eternal Soul or Sheer Emptiness?" There he quotes Mipham (p 105):
In this way, Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophical systems cannot be distinguished through mere words, but as far as the profound essential point is concerned, they are as different as the earth is from the sky. Hence, after his arrival in Tibet, Atiśa said that, in the India of his days, it is difficult to distinguish Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophical systems.
And concludes (p 109):
To summarize, when not just clinging to the words but understanding what is conveyed by these words, let alone Nāgārjuna’s Dharmadhātustava, in Indian Yogācāra texts too, there is no reifying interpretation of tathāgatagarbha. The teachings on buddha nature were never designed as a doctrinal or ontological alternative to or replacement of emptiness. Tathāgatagarbha—the luminous nature of the mind—is not regarded as a monistic absolute beside which all other phenomena have a mere status of emptiness. Rather, it is the natural state of our mind, in which no self-delusion is ever at work. The default example used throughout tathāgatagarbha texts for this nature of the mind being without reference points, inexpressible, and indemonstrable is space. Still, in order to clarify that the ungraspable expanse of the mind is not just a mere inert vacuum, but that this expanse is vivid sheer experience—the natural unity of expanse and wisdom—these texts also give many examples for the luminous aspect of mind’s nature and its boundless inseparable qualities.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
monktastic said:
In my own understanding, what Advaita posits is transcendent and beyond the realm of intellect or concept, and the same is true of Zen. This is not to say that the three systems are equal (this is trivially falsifiable), but that nonconceptual views do not seem to have readily identifiable features that could reasonably differentiate them -- and this is not coincidental.

Astus wrote:
Leaving unrelated comparisons (except with Yogacara of course) behind, there are two ways non-conceptuality can be understood. One is the simple lack of concepts (like a gorilla staring into space), and the other is not being attached to concepts. The first kind is present in everyday life and in the various levels of absorption from the second dhyana on. Those who consider the complete lack of conceptuality the ultimate are categorised in the Brahmajala Sutta under Asaññīvāda, and these unconscious beings (asaññasatta) have their own heaven. In Mahamudra it is called the deviation of grasping non-thought. The second type, that is what Buddhism generally aims for, and that is wisdom. Wisdom is called non-conceptuality because appearances are not reified and grasped but seen as they actually are: empty and interdependent. Or, as the nature of the mind is described: empty and aware. Empty, because it doesn't hold on to anything. Aware, because it clearly perceives everything. That's how, unlike other philosophies and religions, Buddhism doesn't have any ultimate being or essence, not even a special experience. And even when it calls something the true substance and source of everything, it is simply this empty awareness that is not found anywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 29th, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
monktastic said:
Being endlessly curious (but end-fully knowledgable) about the finer philosophical issues, I'd like to ask: isn't this also true of Zen, and quite possible, Advaita Vedanta?

Astus wrote:
That's one of the problems with accepting the idea that one can just practise without understanding the relevant views. It is philosophical naivete, i.e. accepting things at face value without investigation. Mahamudra teaches to first establish "the view", although it doesn't mean a conceptual understanding but rather the experiential confirmation of the nature of the mind. Still, considering all the methods and underlying doctrines involved, it is superficial to claim being beyond dogmas and such. The same is true for every system that likes to appear as "strictly practical". In the starting post of this thread it is shown how Yogacara and Mahamudra have exactly the same meditation steps, making their "practical aspect" identical. But then you hear all the arguments how Yogacara is only Sutrayana and Mahamudra is the pinnacle of Vajrayana.

Dependent origination is a fundamental teaching of the Buddha. In terms of teachings, it means that one should remain aware of the context. If you change the context of a sentence you change its meaning. Same is true for personal experience, because raw experience itself lacks meaning, only concepts can give it importance and content. Even if we theorise that there is such a thing as a universal (religious) experience (as Theosophists believe), even then it is always dependent on the context it is experienced in. That's why it is not irrelevant according to what view one wants to attain what.

In Buddhism this comes up regarding meditation. In the Brahmajala Sutta the Buddha lists the various wrong views different philosophers/priests believe based on what level of absorption (jhana) they experienced. And while Buddhists also know about those, because they see that they are all impermanent and without self, there is no attachment. Whenever one considers any experience as the ultimate, deviates from the middle way of emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 27th, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Lineage and Individual Approaches to Practice
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The Tibetan tradition seems to value the shastras over the sutras generally, perhaps because they summarize and explain the extensive doctrines contained in the Mahayana Canon, which is extremely vast.

Astus wrote:
For that we might says that Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism are complementary as native Chinese schools are more focused on sutras.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 26th, 2013 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Vairochana
Content:
Astus wrote:
The "dharmakaya" is a very abstract concept, and it is without form. Vairocana had its own cult and other devotional and meditational elements that other popular buddhas. It is his symbolic aspect that is identified with the ultimate truth. The Wikipedia explains briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vairocana

Vairocana attained enlightenment, has his own buddha-land (Padma-garbha-loka-dhatu), etc. (Guang Xing: The Concept of the Buddha, p 169-171). There's also this essay that has some info on him: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26987.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Lineage and Individual Approaches to Practice
Content:
heart said:
If you want to master it, you need a master.

Astus wrote:
On the one hand, I think that people can read the sutras as they are. On the other, there are commentaries, written by various masters. I don't mean there is no use for a living teacher, however, receiving teachings on the Lotus Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, or practically any sutra, is quite difficult to come by in the West. And there aren't many commentaries translated either. Although it is understandable in light of the popular concept that one just needs to visit a Dharma centre and follow whatever the local leader says. Probably it takes monastics to establish a solid scriptural system as lay people are rarely interested in such things.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Lineage and Individual Approaches to Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is it to receive transmission from a lineage? It is to receive teachings. The same teachings can also be written down. Reading the sutras is receiving the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha. Numerous Mahayana scriptures state that they are in and of themselves are authentic and sufficient sources of the Dharma. There are also sutras that describe the method to meet other buddhas and receive teachings from them. Sutras also teach how to attain different levels of enlightenment. What could be missing then?

Diamond Sutra ( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html#div-8 ):

"Subhūti, all of the buddhas and all of their teachings of peerless perfect enlightenment spring forth from this sūtra."

Some passages from the Lotus Sutra (tr. Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama; BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, 2007):

If there are any sons or daughters of a virtuous family who preserve, recite, explain, and copy even a single line of the Lotus Sutra, or who pay homage to this sutra with various offerings of flowers, perfumes, necklaces, scented powders and ointments, burning incense, canopies, flags, banners, clothing, or music, or who honor it with their palms pressed together, such people should be respected by the entire world. They should be revered in the same way as the Tathāgata is revered. Know that these people are great bodhisattvas who are to attain highest, complete enlightenment. Out of their compassion for sentient beings they wish to be born among them in order to expound and explain the Lotus Sutra far and wide. How much more to be honored are those who completely preserve the entire sutra and pay homage to it with various offerings!
(ch 10)

Wherever this sutra is taught, read, recited, copied, or wherever it is to be found, one should build a seven-jeweled stupa of great height and width and richly ornamented. There is no need to put a relic inside. Why is this? Because the Tathāgata is already in it.
(ch 10)

Those sons and daughters of a virtuous family, who preserve and recite this sutra after my parinirvāṇa will attain good qualities like those mentioned above. You should know that such people have already set out for the terrace of enlightenment, are near to highest, complete enlightenment, and are seated under the bodhi tree.
(ch 17)

O Mahāsthāmaprāpta, know that this Lotus Sutra will greatly benefit the bodhisattva mahāsattvas and lead them to highest, complete enlightenment. For this reason, after the Tathāgata’s parinirvāṇa the bodhisattva mahāsattvas should always preserve, recite, explain, and copy this sutra.
(ch 20)

To sum up, in this sutra I have clearly revealed and taught all the teachings of the Tathāgata, all the transcendent powers of the Tathāgata, all the treasure houses of the hidden essence of the Tathāgata, and all the profound aspects of the Tathāgata. For this reason, after the pari nirvāṇa of the Tathāgata, you should wholeheartedly preserve, recite, explain, and copy it, and practice according to the teaching. Those who accept, recite, explain, and copy it, and practice according to the teaching, in whichever land they may be, in a place where the sutra abides—either in a garden, a forest, under a tree, in a monk’s chamber, in a layman’s house, in a palace, on a mountain, in a valley, or in the wilderness—in all of these places they should erect and pay homage to a monument. Why is this? Because you should know that these places are the terraces of enlightenment where all the buddhas have attained highest, complete enlightenment, where all the buddhas have turned the wheel of the Dharma, and where all the buddhas entered parinirvāṇa.
(ch 21)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Silent Illumination/Shikantaza
Content:
Sönam said:
This is a total misconception (outsider view) about Dzogchen ... Dzogchen is not integrated into Vajrayana. Dzogchen is not integrating in anything, for it integrates anything ... even hinayana or any sutra teachings.
Method like GY exist, because the student has been introduced by the master to his real nature, Buddha nature. Therefore Dzogchen GY reactivates that process (being in the state of the master).
... because of the blessing of the master.

Astus wrote:
I don't know of any Buddhist tradition outside of Vajrayana that has guru-yoga, or the idea that a teacher is required to introduce the nature of mind, or that there are such things as blessings. You say all of that exist in Dzogchen, and that's what I meant by being part of Vajrayana.

As for claiming superiority (that anyone can do and has little meaning), Yogi Chen http://www.yogichen.org/cw/cw33/bk090.html about Zen, "It is really beyond doctrine at all. Just realization to realization, I use my realization to touch your realization. This means that at the same time the Guru and disciple are in Truth. It is very important, this is the real Chan. Beyond Mahamudra which uses four Yogas and the Great Perfection, which uses initiation too."

He also has an essay: http://www.yogichen.org/gurulin/efiles/e0/e0164.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Silent Illumination/Shikantaza
Content:
flavio81 said:
Would you please elaborate on what do you mean with "Zen is not bound to any method"? This is puzzling me.

Astus wrote:
Zen is simply "seeing nature", i.e. realising buddha-mind. Because it teaches sudden enlightenment, it is not bound to this or that method, while at the same time there are no restrictions about what technique one could use.

Huangbo http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang%20Po/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang-po.htm, "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. If one does not understand that one's mind is Buddha, no Dharma can ever be attained."
Also, "We are enlightened only by Mind, no matter whether we follow the Six Paramitas or other methods.  All such methods and teaching are used only as expedients to help save all sentient beings. ...  Since, in reality, the Mind is Buddha, the first and only teaching necessary for saving sentient beings is 'The Mind is Buddha'."

It is summed up in Bodhidharma's four-line definition of Zen:

A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not dependent upon words and speech;
Directly pointing at the mind,
See into one’s true nature and become a Buddha.
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=59 )

You call it "sutra school", but it's not based on sutras. You call it something, but it's not in words. You say there is a method, but it goes directly. You say it goes gradually, but this very mind is the buddha.

Linji says, "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." (Record of Linji, p 17, tr. Sasaki)

Regarding sitting meditation, Huineng says, "In this teaching of seated meditation, one fundamentally does not concentrate on mind, nor does one concentrate on purity, nor is it motionlessness. ... 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’ (za). Internally, to see the motionlessness of the self-nature is called ‘meditation’ (zen). ... The fundamental nature is naturally pure and naturally concentrated; it is only by seeing the realms and thinking of the realms that one is disturbed." (Platform Sutra, p 45, tr. McRae)

Dogen http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/fzgi.shtml, "Zazen is not a meditation technique. It is simply the Dharma gate of joyful ease, it is practicing the realization of the boundless Dharma way."

Keizan http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/zzyk.shtml, "Zazen is far beyond the form of sitting or lying down. ... Now, zazen is entering directly into the ocean of buddha-nature and manifesting the body of the Buddha. The pure and clear mind is actualized in the present moment; the original light shines everywhere."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Silent Illumination/Shikantaza
Content:
beautiful breath said:
Well no other tradition seems to offer a clarity of teachings on Emptiness like the Tibetan schools do and I cannot find it in myself to mix traditions.

Astus wrote:
It is true that there are many great teachings from the Tibetan tradition on emptiness. However, emptiness is a general Buddhist doctrine, so there is no need to feel bound to any tradition just because you like this or that teaching. Ven. Shengyan, following Ven. Yinshun, taught in a Madhyamaka style, so you might want to look deeper into their works.

As mentioned before, there are a number of differences between the path of Dzogchen and the path of Zen. It is mostly about Dzogchen being integrated into Vajrayana and carries with it methods like guru-yoga, empowerments, energy channels, etc., while Zen is not bound to any method.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
Astus wrote:
I didn't mean this thread to slip into a debate about what is and what isn't Yogacara. I find it most fascinating that a primary Mahamudra method actually has a Yogacara source. So I'm interested if there are other things within the Mahamudra tradition that can be connected to Yogacara.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Who/what is the subject?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.fodian.net/world/1564.htm#Investigation%20of%20the%20Presence%20of%20Something%20Prior

Some say that whatever is involved in seeing, hearing etc. and feeling etc. exists prior to them.
If [that] thing is not evident, how can there be seeing etc? Therefore, the presence [of that] thing [must] exist before them.
What configures/makes known that thing which is present before seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc.?
...


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
smcj said:
I'll stick to KTGR's synopsis.

Astus wrote:
When I said "authentic teachers of Yogacara" I meant those who uphold Yogacara as their primary doctrine and are regarded as Yogacara teachers. As for KTGR, when he talks about Shentong in that book, he identifies its source as the five treatises of Maitreya, and that includes the Dharmadharmatavibhaga where the four yogic practices are mentioned and then connected to the four yogas of Mahamudra by commentators. In Brünnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky he practically identifies Shentong as Yogacara, since it is based on Yogacara texts:

"There is no Shentong-Madhyamaka nor any need to make one up. The subdivision of Madhyamaka into "self-empty" and "other-empty" is obsolete. ... It is all the more inappropriate to wrongly subsime it - as many Tibetan doxographies do - under the questionable category of "Mere Mentalism" and thus regard it as inferior to Centrism. It would definitely contribute to the appreciation of this Yogacara system for what it is if it were called neither Mere Ment Mentalism nor Shentong but simply "the Yogacara System of Maitreya/Asanga" or "the lineage of vast activity."
(p 445)

Therefore, what is identified as Mind Only in KTGR's meditation book is only a lower stage to reach the correct understanding of actual Yogacara.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
smcj said:
Mahamudra isn't married to any one perspective.

Astus wrote:
True. But if you look at the initial post, it shows how a Yogacara practice - the four yogas - is actually identical to a Mahamudra method, stage by stage. And this is not only something I have noticed, but so did old masters like Go Lotsawa.

smcj said:
Since I'm a Kagyu, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's "Progressive Stages of Mediation on Emptiness" works just fine.

Astus wrote:
If you use a source that emphasises a different perspective you cannot learn the actual teachings of another school. You have to look at the authentic teachers of Yogacara to see what they say. It's just like reading a Theosophist or a Muslim writer in order to learn Buddhism - it is inevitable that they don't present a correct view. Since the three quotes from fundamental Yogacara treatises contradict the idea that they teach some sort of substantial mind, that criticism does not stand.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
smcj said:
Yogacara is the "Mind Only" school. I do not know of a variant that does not posit the existence of Mind, unless you mean "Absolute Yogacara", which is a Gelug pejorative for Shentong. Shentong does not posit an existent Mind, but they do posit something else.
However my information comes from Tibetan sources, so I don't know the history in India. These things do evolve over time.

Astus wrote:
This is a useful summary by Dan Lusthaus: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm.

Mahayanasutralamkara, ch. 6:

"Realizing intellectually that there is nothing apart from mind, she understands then that mind (itself) has no (ultimate) existence. Understanding that duality has no existence, such a genius dwells in the ultimate realm which has no (duality)."
(tr. from "The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature", p 52)

28th verse of Vasubandhu's Trimsika:

One does abide in the realization
Of mere [representation of] consciousness
When one does not perceive also a supporting consciousness,
For, the graspable objects being absent,
There cannot either be the grasping of that,
[Namely, the grasping of the supporting consciousness].
(tr. T.A. Kochumuttom in "A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience", p 258-259)

When consciousness itself
Does not observe any focal object,
It rests in the very being of mere consciousness
Since there is no apprehender without something apprehended.
(tr. K. Brunnholzl in "Mining for Wisdom within Delusion", p 262)

When in perceiving the sphere of objects, wisdom (jnana) no longer conceives any idea of object, then that wisdom is in the state of vijnaptimatrata. Because both the object to be grasped and the act of grasping by consciousness are not there.
(tr. Swati Ganguly in "Treatise in Thirty Verses on Mere-consciousness", p 130)

Mahayanasamgraha, ch. 3:

"When the mind encounters these objects, its knowledge of the rope is also negated. When with a parallel insight one eradicates the apparent names and objects that appear in these six images, then discriminative, defiled understanding in mental words will no longer arise, just as in the knowledge of the snake. In suppressing objectivity in these six images, just as was the case with the knowledge of the rope, by relying on the wisdom of suchness, the understanding of conscious construction only itself can be rejected.
In this fashion, in understanding that the images discriminated by the mental words appear as objective, the bodhisattva fully understands the imagined pattern. In understanding the meaning of conscious construction only, he fully understands the other-dependent pattern. But how does he understand the reality pattern?
By abandoning any idea about conscious construction only! At that moment the bodhisattva clearly understands the imagining of mental words, which long since had been yoked to the permeations of hearing doctrine, and he suppresses any idea of their correspondence with the external world. These [ideas] no longer arise because their apparent objective status no longer has any cause and thus they do not even arise as an imagining of the mental words of conscious construction only. This implies that the bodhisattva dwells only in non-imagination in regard to all objects and names, and in virtue of non-imaginative wisdom he realizes and abides in the Reality Realm of suchness. He then enters the reality pattern because of the arising of non-imaginative wisdom wherein subject and object are entirely identical."
(tr. J. P. Keenan in "The Summary of the Great Vehicle" p 64)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
Which Yogacara? The one that posits an existent "mind?"   Or later interpretations?

Astus wrote:
Which Yogacara posits an existent mind? It seems to me that only Tibetan apologetics invented that. Vasubandhu certainly did not.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at 9:55 PM
Title: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here it is shown how the practice of Mahamudra and Yogacara match:

Maitreya's Dharmadharmatavibhaga:

"The comprehension of the correct
Yogic practice in four points
Is the yogic practice of observation,
The yogic practice of nonobservation,
The yogic practice of the nonobservation of observation,
And the yogic practice of the observation of nonobservation."
(Karl Brünnholzl: Mining for Wisdom within Delusion, p 167)

Rangjung Dorje's Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer:

"When observing objects, they are seen to be the mind,
devoid of objects.
When observing the mind, there is no mind, as it is empty of an entity.
When observing both, dualistic fixation is spontaneously freed.
May we realize the natural state of the luminous mind."
(Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche: Song of Karmapa, p 14)

Go Lotsawa's Commentary on The Distinction between Phenomena and the Nature of Phenomena:

"You may wonder, "Such is certainly the case, but if one holds that this text of the Bhagavan Maitreya is also a text of what is known as the yogas of Mahamudra, do the four yogas of this [Mahamudra] fit with those [four yogic practices in the Dharmadharmatiivibhaga]?" They do fit very well. The first [Mahamudra yoga] is to look inside and then to focus on [everything being] one's own mind. As for the explanation [in] the second [yogic practice] that there is nothing external, it is the [Mahamudra yoga of] freedom from reference points in which one realizes that all phenomena that are objects of the mind lack any basis or root. The realization that both what appears as [if] external and the inner mind free from reference points are of one taste is the yogic practice of the nonobservation of observation. To not meditate through deliberately focusing on even the nonduality of subject and object is called "nonmeditation," which is the fourth [Mahamudra] yoga."
(Mining for Wisdom within Delusion, p 320)

Do you know of other correlations?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: The Two Truths
Content:
rachmiel said:
This, of course, doesn't help me if I don't understand what "relative" and "absolute" mean in this context.

Astus wrote:
To believe that there is something solid in our experience is the realm of the relative. To see that there is nothing substantial anywhere that could be grasped is the absolute. To perceive that appearances are dream-like without any basis is the middle way.

As Patrul Rinpoche explains under The Provisional Understanding In Terms Of The Two Truths:

"When we understand the natural condition of phenomena in general, and realize that they are similar to an illusion on the relative level because they appear although they are not truly existent, whereas they are like space on the absolute level because they can not be established as existent or non-existent, and we also understand that ultimately the truths are inseparable within the great Middle Way—the absolute space of reality beyond all conceptual extremes—the mind or awareness that has this understanding is relative."

rachmiel said:
Is "The knowledge that appearances arise unfailingly in dependence" = relative truth and "the knowledge that they are empty and beyond all assertions" = absolute truth?

Astus wrote:
Yes. However, as the verse goes on, it states one should not stay with the view that there are actually two truths.

Patrul Rinpoche writes, "The division into the two truths is only a provisional device, based on the distinct perspectives of two states of mind, that is made in order to facilitate understanding."

rachmiel said:
This sounds pretty much exactly like what I said: "Absolute truth is 'what is' (sans interpretation)." Am I misunderstanding something ... or is my take on absolute truth correct?

Astus wrote:
When there is still something, it is conceptual elaboration, it is interpretation. It's not that one should get rid of thinking and understanding, it is believing that concepts hold some sort of truth when one fails to see "what is". And by that "truth" the belief that they are contrary to reality is included. That is, as long as we think we should gain or get rid of something, that is the relative view and not the absolute.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
desertman001 said:
In dependent arising the first condition is ignorance, followed by mental formations then consciousness then mind and matter. This is all before the senses and before birth. So what is it that is being ignorant? Does this imply a mind prior to form? Is the condition prior to mental formation emptiness?

Astus wrote:
The 12 links don't describe some primal origination, it is an ongoing process from moment to moment, and from life to life.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 20th, 2013 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
When you leave the house on fire, are you in the world of dependent originations? Are you still under the powers of the murderous demon of impermanence? Is there anything in the house on fire that can save you or other sentient beings?

Astus wrote:
Why leave? Linji says in your quote, "it will suffice for you to seek nothing outside."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 20th, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: The Two Truths
Content:
Astus wrote:
Relative is believing the relative to be absolute. Absolute is seeing that the relative is relative.

The knowledge that appearances arise unfailingly in dependence,
And the knowledge that they are empty and beyond all assertions—
As long as these two appear to you as separate,
There can be no realization of the Buddha’s wisdom.

Yet when they arise at once, not each in turn but both together,
Then through merely seeing unfailing dependent origination
Certainty is born, and all modes of misapprehension fall apart—
That is when discernment of the view has reached perfection.

When you know that appearances dispel the extreme of existence,
While the extreme of nothingness is eliminated by emptiness,
And you also come to know how emptiness arises as cause and effect,
Then you will be immune to any view entailing clinging to extremes.
( http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/tsongkhapa/three-principal-aspects )

Also see this brief and practical explanation: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/two-truths-view-mahayana


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
It better be something mystical like the attainment of nirvana which takes us beyond the kindergarten teaching.

Astus wrote:
Kindergarten is a pretty good place.

All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty. All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That’s all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood, and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles’ twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The Buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks.
(Record of Linji, p 19; tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
And if you spoke to a non-Buddhist about 'the nature of your own mind' what would that mean to them? If I stopped the man in the street and said 'look here, trust in the true nature of your own mind', how would he respond?

Astus wrote:
And what if you go to someone who knows nothing about Buddhism and ask them: Isn't it true that things change? Isn't it true that we give names to objects? Isn't it true that while things necessarily change we hold on to their concepts? Isn't it true that we have the freedom to grasp and let go of ideas? Isn't it true that holding on to unrealistic thoughts causes suffering? Isn't it true that if you find a view false you don't hold on to it any longer? Isn't it true that having a correct understand how we can see clearly what thoughts and emotions move us we can learn to avoid suffering and attain peace?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
What do you think is the significance of 'supernatural' in this quotation?

Astus wrote:
Its significance is in refuting the idea that one should attain paranormal powers. It points to the actual goal of Buddhism in attaining liberation in this body. That's why "walking upon the earth", a most ordinary activity, is supernatural.

jeeprs said:
Substitute the word Juingong with 'God' and any Christian would say the same. ... That seems to be the kind of 'God' that many people pray to and atheists deny. But the mystical understanding of 'God' is completely different to that.

Astus wrote:
That is, only a handful of esoteric oriented Christians would consider God as one's own mind, not mainstream Christian churches. But this is going to a "comparative religion" area that is not for this forum.

jeeprs said:
But she herself says in that passage I quoted, that it might be thought of as God. She doesn't have a problem with that, even if you do.

Astus wrote:
She says that one can call it god, father, mother, etc. It doesn't matter, because it's just a name. She is not talking about mashing up religious doctrines.

jeeprs said:
'The true nature', 'big mind', 'buddha nature', these are concepts from within a religious tradition, namely, Buddhism. I don't see how you can keep quoting them, referring to them, and saying 'this is what they mean', without acknowledging that elementary fact.

Astus wrote:
This discussion is taking place in the Zen forum. I happily acknowledge the contextual nature of terminology. As you say, context is very important. And, as far as I'm concerned, the entire topic has meaning only in a Buddhist context. Other contexts (philosophies, religions, literature, etc.) are irrelevant. And that's why bringing in Western mysticism and equating it with Zen - as done in Ford's article - is disregarding the context.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
Yes, as a matter of fact. Zen Buddhism is deeply mystical. How did it start? With the Buddha gazing at a flower and smiling. One particular monk 'gets it' and also smiles. There you go, birth of a grand tradition, via 'mind to mind transmission outside the scriptures'. How is that not mystical? What do you think we're discussing?

Astus wrote:
The story of raising a flower was first mentioned in the Tiansheng Guangdeng Lu (Zen Classics, p 203), a Song Dynasty text propagating the Linji faction (The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy, p 39f) and their idea of "transmission outside the scriptures". Previous Zen records have no knowledge about it. It is at best the mythological beginning of Zen.

jeeprs said:
The alayavijnana is a mystical conception. It is often equated with Jung's idea of 'the collective unconscious'.

Astus wrote:
I agree, the alayavijnana is not a common term, however, it is well known among Mahayana Buddhists. On the other hand, it is definitely not a "collective unconscious". Everybody has their personal karma, their own habitual tendencies. Yogacara denies even the possibility of perceiving another's mind, sharing it among each other is even less likely.

jeeprs said:
Here I have a book called 'No River to Cross', by Zen Master Daehaeng. Almost every page is about 'one mind'

Astus wrote:
Look at how she defines the term Juingong:

"Why is it called Juingong? It is the doer, so it is called "Juin (主人)," and it is completely empty, that is, it is always changing, without any fixed shape, so it is called "Gong (空)". Thus Juingong means your fundamental, underlying essence, which is always changing and manifesting."
(No River To Cross, p10)

How is that different from Linji?

"What is dharma? ‘Dharma’ is the dharma of mind. Mind is without form; it pervades the ten directions and is manifesting its activity right before your very eyes."
(The Record of Linji, p 11. tr. Sasaki)

"Followers of the Way, mind is without form and pervades the ten directions.
In the eye it is called seeing, in the ear it is called hearing.
In the nose it smells odors, in the mouth it holds converse.
In the hands it grasps and seizes, in the feet it runs and carries.
Fundamentally it is one pure radiance; divided it becomes the six harmoniously united spheres of sense. If the mind is void, wherever you are, you are emancipated."
(p 9-10)

Later Linji also says,

"when it is realized that these six—color, sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharmas— are all empty forms, they cannot bind the man of the Way, dependent upon nothing. Constituted though he is of the seepage of the five skandhas, he has the supernatural power of walking upon the earth."
(p 20)

Daehaeng Sunim often explained that there is no point in praying to Juingong waiting for some sort of solution to our problems. What one has to do is to trust in Juingong, the true nature of the mind, and let go of everything, let Juingong take care of it. This is the essential practice of Zen, letting go. Although Daehaeng Sunim may sound like someone talking about Juingong as if it were God, a careful look at her teachings show that it's nothing like any deity of any religion, it is simply the nature of our own mind. Yotaku Bankei was also mistaken for a Christian by some because of his teaching of the Unborn. This is similar to people who confuse buddha-nature with a soul. It's all because people lack the necessary training in the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. It is one of the reasons I say that emphasising impermanence makes things easier.

jeeprs said:
Granted, many translations of the Awakening of the Faith are influenced by the fact that one of the original translations were by Samual Beal who was a Christian chaplain. But the text is about 'the world soul' and 'the one mind'.

Astus wrote:
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html is quite good. It does talk of one mind, and by that it means the mind of the sentient beings that is the tathagatagarbha, it has the two aspects of principle (emptiness) and function (dependent origination), and they are not two separate things or realms. This is what one recognises through the meditation practice described in the treatise.

jeeprs said:
And I emphatically disagree with 'seeing nothing beyond appearances'. The notion of the 'equality of nirvana and samsara' - and remember that is a very radical idea, which to this day the Theravada Buddhists have never accepted - is not that the uninstructed worlding is no different to the Buddha. How does Suzuki put it:

Astus wrote:
Is emptiness outside of appearances? No, appearances themselves are empty. The teaching of emptiness is a statement about the nature of phenomena. I don't know how radical this is when it is a core Mahayana doctrine and found in every tradition. It doesn't mean that there are no ignorance and enlightenment. In fact, wisdom is seeing that all things are empty, while not seeing that is being deluded.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 18th, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
I think you are conflating the abdhidhamma categories with the primarily mystical attitude that began to appear with Mahayana Buddhism. In fact in the abdhidhamma mind is usually understood as 'manas' being the 'organ which grasps ideas'. I think the terms that are generally rendered as 'mind' in the more mystical sense are derived from 'citta' (as in 'bodhicitta') rather than 'manas'.

Astus wrote:
What mystical attitude started with Mahayana? Madhyamaka refutes the ultimate reality of the abhidharma categories, but as relative things they are OK. Yogacara embraces the abhidharma system and even expands it, further elaborating on the functioning of mind. Regarding mental activities in abhidharma, it sets up the two mental categories as citta and caitasika. Here is a Theravada explanation:

"According to the Pali or Sanskrit language, the citta, or mind, has many different synonyms. The most important ones are mano, manas, and vinnana. In the commentaries of the Abhidhamma, manas, vinnana and cittam are considered to only be synonyms. Also in the Vissudhi Magga. Their difference is only in discussing different aspects of the subject matter.

Citta is defined as, “Alambanam cintaeti iti cittam,” that which cognizes the object. That is the mind. When we speak of mana, what is emphasized is that which is thinking. “Yena minnyatae tat manas.” So, the mind is considered as an instrument of thinking, as the action of thinking, cettana, and also as that which thinks about the object. Then, we have the vinnana, from vi- janati: that which differentiates. So, the mind is also that which differentiates the objects.

All of these meanings are there, and they are synonyms for the same thing. In the Theravada tradition, all are synonyms for the same phenomena, mind. What is most important is that the mind is understood as cetana, just thinking. What it means is that there is no possibility of what is common in European philosophy, “Cogito ergo su,” or “I cognize, therefore I am.”

In Buddhism, there is only, “Cogito er cognatio es,” or “I think therefore there is cognition.”

Cognition. There is nothing else to the mind. That mind, which is cognition, is also the instrument of cognition, and it is that by which the object is cognized."
( http://www.phathue.com/buddhism/dharma-talks/abhidhamma-with-dhammadipa/ )

If you check Madhyamaka, they recognise the normal six consciousnesses, while in Yogacara there are eight. In Vajrayana they match the five aggregates with the five buddha families and the five wisdoms, in Yogacara the eight consciousnesses with the four wisdoms. In the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana the tathagatagarbha is matched with alayavijnana. And all these consciousnesses correspond to the mental aggregates in the five skandhas. Where is the extra mystical component?

jeeprs said:
My belief is that there are mystics within Buddhism itself, and have been from the very earliest times, and that there are a number of levels or layers within the teaching, mysticism being one of them. You can say that without saying that Buddhism is primarily or only mystical. It is many things.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by "mystics"? Not the I have any problem with the term, but it'd be good if you could clarify what its significance is.

jeeprs said:
But there are somewhat 'quasi-theist' streams in Mahayana, notably, for instance, scriptures such as 'Awakening of the Faith in the Mahayana'.

Astus wrote:
What quasi-theist streams are you referring to? Could you point to it in Asvaghosa's treatise?

jeeprs said:
But there is another 'domain', if you like, namely the domain of laws, one form of which is the idea of 'dharmakaya', which is not the subject of the notion of 'impermanence'. Of course one has to tread carefully here because neither is 'dharmakaya' an 'object of perception' for that very reason, so discussing it in terms of permanence and impermanence might be misleading. However suffice to say that the Mahayana idea of the 'cosmic Buddha', a class of being that has appeared and will continue to appear 'through aeons of Kalpas', is only meaningful if the underlying principle, namely Dharma, is not something that is subject to change and decay.

Astus wrote:
If there is a domain that cannot be experienced it has zero relevance to us. On the other hand, in the Awakening of Faith and many other teachings it is explained how one can understand and realise the true nature of mind. For example:

"If they understand that, concerning all things, though they are spoken of, there is neither that which speaks, nor that which can be spoken of, and though they are thought of, there is neither that which thinks, nor that which can be thought of, then they are said to have conformed to it."

"There is only the insight into Suchness transcending both the seer and the seen; we call this the experience of the Dharmakaya."

And if you look at the practical instructions from the treatise:

Cessation:
"All thoughts, as soon as they are conjured up, are to be discarded, and even the thought of discarding them is to be put away, for all things are essentially in the state of transcending thoughts, and are not to be created from moment to moment nor to be extinguished from moment to moment; thus one is to conform to the essential nature of Reality (dharmata) through this practice of cessation. ... It should be understood that this "correct thought" is the thought that whatever is, is mind only and that there is no external world of objects as conceived; even this mind is devoid of any marks of its own which would indicate its substantiality and therefore is not substantially conceivable as such at any moment."

Observation:

"He who practices "clear observation" should observe that all conditioned phenomena in the world are unstationary and are subject to instantaneous transformation and destruction; that all activities of the mind arise and are extinguished from moment to moment; and that, therefore, all of these induce suffering. He should observe that all that had been conceived in the past was as hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly."

Their Unity:

"That is to say, he is to meditate upon the fact that things are unborn in their essential nature; but at the same time he is to meditate upon the fact that good and evil karma, produced by the combination of the primary cause and the coordinating causes, and the retributions of karma in terms of pleasure, pain, etc., are neither lost nor destroyed. Though he is to meditate on the retribution of good and evil karma produced by the primary and coordinating causes [i.e., he is to practice "clear observation"], he is also to meditate on the fact that the essential nature of things is unobtainable by intellectual analysis."

If you look through these teachings, these meditation instructions from Asvaghosa, it talks about not grasping at phenomena and also seeing that all phenomena arise inter-dependently. That is the realisation of the middle way. Same as in Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Also in Tiantai and Zen. It doesn't talk about anything beyond appearances, it says that the nature of appearances is unborn and empty. That is what has to be realised.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 17th, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
So I am still unclear. If body dies, but mind doesn't, this implies that a mind thoroughly purified is 'beyond death', does it not? And therefore not 'the same' as the aggregates. You said earlier that this mind was simply 'lack of substance'. But it is not merely an absence, simply nothing at all. That is nihilistic, isn't it?

Many of the Mahayana books I have talk about 'one mind' or 'Big Mind' or simply  Mind with a capital M. That is a mystical idea, no matter how you slice and dice it. I'm not saying they're right, and you're not, but I prefer those intepretations, and as far as I am concerned, it is not nearly so cut-and-dried as you seem to think you have made it.

Astus wrote:
The skandhas can be split into two parts: rupa and nama (body and mind). The four mental aggregates represent one of the possible categorisation of mental functions. It doesn't mean there are 4 minds or anything like that. They are what the mind-stream is. Since the mind-stream is maintained not by material things (rupa) but by previous mental phenomena, with the death of the body the mind does not cease to function. That's why there is rebirth. And when the mind is purified there are the three bodies, etc., that is, all the buddha qualities and functions. This is not nihilistic at all, rather it might look like some eternal soul, but it isn't that.

The terms you mention are mostly the work of translators. There is no such thing as upper and lower case in Chinese or Sanskrit. Another difficulty is that in Zen literature they often use the same word (心 - mind) for both ordinary and buddha mind. Capitalising it is meant to help the reader, but at the same time it gives the impression as if there were two minds. Zongmi often said, "That which is clear and capable of awareness right now is your Buddha-mind." (Jinul quotes it a few times, e.g. Collected Works of Chinul, p 272) Mystical or not, it is right here for everyone to recognise.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 17th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
In the first quote 'nothing beyond the aggregates'. In the second 'pure mind' which is 'not extinguished. Aren't these statements in conflict?

Astus wrote:
How so? The mind exists only from moment to moment, but there is a causal continuity. The death of the body is not the death of the mind. Liberation is not the elimination but the purification of the mind-stream. In other words, one has to see the nature of this mind and not go and find another one.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 17th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
I am not claiming to know that, or to have realized that state, but I think the case can be made for it on the basis of documentary sources.

This is why there is a dimension of insight, knowledge, or prajna, which is totally beyond 'worldly knowledge'. You seem to deny that yet whilst quoting sources that I think are referring to such states.

Astus wrote:
So it is a matter of looking at the scriptures and treatises. I have brought here various works from different authors of Mahayana treatises to show how claiming that there exists something beyond the five aggregates cannot be established. Although Nikaya/Agama schools state that there is a nirvana without remainder where the skandhas are eliminated, that is not the Mahayana view (e.g. http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=167186#p167186 ).

jeeprs said:
So, is the Buddha identical to 'the mind-stream'? I thought the theory was that when 'the effluents' were extinguished, the 'mind-stream' is no more, which would seem to indicate not.

Again, the point of the 'Yamaka sutta' which you introduced several pages back, is that it is incorrect to say that the nirvana of the enlightened monk is 'annihalation' or 'non-being'. When such a one has gone totally beyond 'mindstreams' yet they still are not non-existent. What kind of being is that?

Astus wrote:
The mind is not just the afflictions, in fact, those are only "adventitious defilements" and the nature of the mind itself is pure. This is the buddha-nature doctrine. When the mind-stream is purified we get to the buddha-mind (that includes the three bodies, four wisdoms, etc.). So, to say that the mind-stream is extinguished is not true.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
While the typical profane person hangs on to them, the ariya disciple doesn't.

Astus wrote:
Not hanging on to the skandhas is not the same as eliminating them, because what is to be removed is one's attachment to the aggregates. This is explained often, as in SN 23.1 where the Mara theme is introduced.

Koji said:
When I read the Nikayas or Mahayana discoures I see only mysticism, which is all about transcending samsara, realizing the deathless—your read is probably different.

Astus wrote:
It is the kind of trascendentalism (similarly to Philosophia Perennis, Theosophy, etc.) that posits an ultimate thing above and beyond dependent phenomena that I'm arguing against, as that is the background of Ford's article. I'm not denying the validity of the third noble truth at all. What I'm saying is that the actual nature of all things is deathless and that there is no deathless beyond the things themselves, in other words, "Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit different from nirvana. Nirvana is not the slightest bit different from cyclic existence." (MMK 25.19)

Koji said:
Just curious, what is your basis for concluding there "is no self of any kind"? Are the skandhas your basis insofar as the Buddha said they are self-less (Pali, anattâ)?

Astus wrote:
The aggregates are neither self nor the possessions of a self, they neither me nor mine. That rules out both an internal and an external self. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.007.wlsh.html explains in brief how understanding this makes all the difference. A rather elaborate way of showing this is Candrakirti's http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sevenfold_reasoning_of_the_chariot. As Nagarjuna summed it up:

"[The Buddha] has declared that form is not self, self is not form,
There is no form in a self, and there is no self in form.
These four ideas are conceived in relation to the form aggregate.
Any link of a “self” to the other aggregates is in all respects the same.
These twenty ideas are inverted views.
If one can cut them off entirely, this is the most superior [insight]."
(Letter From a Friend, v. 40; tr. Bhikshu Dharmamitra from  Gunavarman's)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
But there is, as you acknowledge, 'a mindstream' which functions as a quasi-self (or, more likely, a rhetorical device necessitated by a dogmatic intepretation of 'anatta'.)

Astus wrote:
Mind-stream simply refers to the mental aggregates. It's not some separate entity, but the flow of the moments of mental phenomena.

jeeprs said:
So when it is said that 'the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea'  is this a reference to mere absence of lack of substance?

Astus wrote:
What is buddha? The mind is buddha. What is mind? The mental aggregates that are without substance. To believe that they have substance is the ignorance of self-view.

jeeprs said:
There is a state beyond ordinary sensory perception, but it cannot be discovered by 'the self'.

Astus wrote:
There is no self of any kind (provisional or ultimate). If there is a state that one is unable to discover how do you know about it? How can anyone know about it?

jeeprs said:
The phrase ‘objectifies non-objectification’ (vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti) is key here.

Astus wrote:
Fabrication (prapanca) is the root of grasping the aggregates, and without it there is no grasping either. This is taught clearly in Madhyamaka and in Zen too. However, there is not something beyond to look for, otherwise we claim that there is buddha outside the mind.

"When the views of the self and being mine are extinguished,
With respect to the internal and the external,
Appropriation ceases.
Through this having been eliminated, birth is eliminated.
Through the elimination of karma and affliction there is nirvana.
Karma and affliction come from conceptual thought.
These come from mental fabrication.
Fabrication ceases through emptiness.
...
Not dependent on another, peaceful and
Not fabricated by fabrications,
Not conceptualized, without distinctions:
That is the characteristic of things as they really are."
(MMK 18.4-5, 9; Ocean of Reasoning, p. 376-376, 385)

And the buddha is nothing but the ending of fabrication, as http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=174993#p174993 from MMK 22.15-16.

The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment also says (ch. 2, tr. C. Muller), "the cessation of illusion is called 'unchanging.'" And in the next chapter explains, "the unchanging purity of the nature of enlightenment completely pervades—it includes everything without restriction. Therefore you should know that the six faculties completely pervade the realm of reality. Since the faculties completely pervade, you should know that the six sensory fields completely pervade the realm of reality. Since the sensory fields completely pervade, you should know that the Four Elements completely pervade the realm of reality."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
Probably understanding what abandon means in Pali might help. Even the eye is to be abandoned according to the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
I'm simply asking for your explanation of the views you have put out here. Since at the moment I don't see it as in agreement with what is taught in the Pali Canon (and Mahayana especially), I don't see how it could be matched with any Pali term. But if you have one for it and references, please bring them here.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 13th, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
What then your theory implies is that the pañcakhandhâ, which are those of an arahant, are subject to Mara. The sutta doesn't mention upâdânakkandhâ are subject to Mara. So are we to conclude that upâdânakkandhâ are not subject to Mara and arahant pañcakhandhâ are?

Astus wrote:
There are definitive and provisional teachings. The Mara Sutta of SN 23.11 requires further interpretation in my view. To decide that, please clarify to me two things. According to your opinion:

- Where is suffering in sight (e.g. seeing a cloud) when there is no attachment?
- If the skandhas are to be abandoned, how can an arhat see, hear, sense and think?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 12th, 2013 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Koan practice in the light of the Nikāyas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It depends on how you practise with koans. If you use them as a fixed object of meditation, that's samatha. If you use them to investigate the way the mind works, that's vipassana. If you use them to cut conceptual proliferation and maintain awareness, that's the combination of samatha and vipassana.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 12th, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
So you are in fact saying 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

Astus wrote:
No. Where did I say that the mind-stream is annihilated at death? Nowhere. All I'm saying is that looking for buddha outside the mind is mistaken.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 12th, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
The fact that the tathagatha cannot be 'pinned down' does not amount to a description of a 'continually existing entity'. But that 'something is indefineable' or 'cannot be pinned down' is obviously not 'a definition' at all. Ideas of 'what exists' and 'what is permanent' can only be conceived in terms of 'the sense aggregates', and it is true that nothing in the realm of the sense aggregates is eternal or self-existent. But to say therefore that the Tathagata is impermanent, is to categorize the Tathagata with other phenomena.

The main point of the whole sutta is the idea that the view that 'the monk is nothing more than the total of the aggregates, and therefore ceases to exist at death, is a mistaken view - actually a grievously mistaken view ("evil supposition").

So I'm struggling to see how your views expressed in this thread differs from this same view which is being rejected in this sutta.

Astus wrote:
"Cannot be pinned down" is anupalabbha/anupalabdha/無所得. A central term, in Mahayana especially, as an equivalent of emptiness. It is often translated as unobtainable, unattainable and ungraspable.

In chapter 71 of the Lankavatara Sutra this "unobtainability" is explained as, "That [transcendental] knowledge is unobtainable is due to the recognition that there is nothing in the world but what is seen of the Mind, and that these external objects to which being and non-being are predicated are non-existent." And inn chapter 83, "by "right knowledge" is meant this: when names and appearances are seen as unobtainable owing to their mutual conditioning, there is no more rising of the Vijnanas, for nothing comes to annihilation, nothing abides everlastingly; and when there is thus no falling back into the stage of the philosophers, Sravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, it is said that there is right knowledge. Further, Mahamati, by reason of this right knowledge, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva does not regard name as reality and appearance as non-reality."

In the Heart Sutra there is this line, "Because there is nothing to be attained, the bodhisattva relying on prajna paramita has no obstruction in his mind." And Lok To writes in his http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/harttr.htm: "The Prajna Paramita Hrydaya Sutra is the core of the Maha Prajna Paramita in six hundred scrolls. Its teaching is the teaching of supramundane Void as the only true existence, the true Void being mysteriously concealed in the existing. Therefore one might say the substance of this sutra is the characteristic of Void of all dharmas; non-obtaining is the purpose. There is nothing to be obtained from the manifestation of dharmas, all dharmas being void, or empty."

Because the aggregates are empty, there is no self found (unobtainable), there is liberation. It is indeed mistaken to think that someone perishes because there is no permanent self inside or outside the skandhas. Emptiness is not the same as annihilation, it is not an eternal substance either, but the dependent origination of all phenomena. Ignorance is taking the skandhas - that is, our realm of experience - as essentially real and graspable. Realising that everything is empty, unobtainable, is becoming free from suffering. But to think that there is something beyond this realm of experience as a place of escape is still grasping and self-construction.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 12th, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
Transcending means, by definition, to go beyond the limits of the skandhas. Now this brings up an interesting question: Is the position of the one who is not clinging to the skandhas inherently transcendent or skandhic? If the latter, this implies the skandhas have somehow conspired not to cling to themselves!

One more point, in this passage it seems the Buddha is saying in so many words, eliminate the skandhas.
"These are the five aggregates subject to clinging.  This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five aggregates subject to clinging, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning." The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (volume II), by Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 1565

Astus wrote:
The skandhas are what? All the experience there exists. It means seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching. It means feeling, recognising, comprehending and knowing.

You propose that the experience of seeing is suffering, that being aware of something is suffering, that being able to speak and hear is suffering; therefore a buddha must be without all of this, incapable of any perception and comprehension. Even if there were something else beyond the skandhas, it would be without all forms of perception and understanding, it would be completely insentient and dead.

What I say is that the problem is not with the fact of sensing and knowing but with attachment. As your quote itself says, the "aggregates subject to clinging" must be eliminated. Aggregates not subject to clinging, that is the result, that is liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
Consider this phrase from the quote of Nagarjuna's you provide:

Astus wrote:
So, let's look at that verse then.

Kalupahana in his commentary (p. 310) says regarding the expression Batchelor translated as "without deterioration": "The term avyaya in the present context expresses the same idea of stability and steadfastness achieved by a Buddha. This is not to assume his permanent existence." Tsongkhapa says (Ocean of Reasoning, p. 450), "being essentially unarisen, does not extinguish by essentially passing on". That is, just as the previous verse states, there is nothing that could be called existing or non-existing - not because there is something beyond those two, or because it cannot be said - but because it is not a thing but the lack of substance. As the Chinese commentary (tr. B.C. Bocking) says, "From the very beginning the Thus-Come was utterly empty; how much more so after his decease?" Same as the Yamaka sutta's "you can't pin down the Tathagata".

jeeprs said:
He doesn't really say what it consists of

Astus wrote:
He says that is is an experience of unity with lasting effect and leaves a vivid memory. If you compare that to the quote from Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, it is clear that such strong experiences are not insights but only visions. In Zen they count as afflictions, klesha, bonno. How could that equal to kensho?

jeeprs said:
And at that point the individual mind intuitively realises its non-difference from Mind

Astus wrote:
It sounds a like talking about the unity of jivatman and paramatman.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
I think there is a sense in which that which is 'everlasting' is not something durable, which exists 'in itself', so to speak. It is imperishable in not being subject to change and decay, but it is not something completely separate to the realm of change and decay either - outside of time, rather than persisting through time.

Astus wrote:
It sounds like instead of choosing "yes" or "no" you select "yes and no". Alas, it's an impossible thing for something to be permanent and impermanent at the same time. What Dogen is saying, following Huineng (and Tiantai teachings), is that right here this impermanent, ephemeral world is buddha-nature itself. Same as Nagarjuna explained the non-difference of samsara and nirvana. Huineng's criticism of someone who proposed a separate dharmakaya:

"According to what you say, there is a Dharma-body that exists apart from physical form and a tranquil extinction to be sought apart from production and extinction. Moreover you propose that there is a body which enjoys the permanence and bliss of Nirvana. But that is to grasp tightly onto birth and death and indulge in worldly bliss."
(Platform Sutra, ch. 7)

jeeprs said:
But if you ask the question, 'what is it that is not annihalated at death', this question is not directly addressed.

Astus wrote:
It is answered. "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 Nagarjuna writes (MMK 22.15-16), "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. Whatever is the own-nature of the tathagata, that is the own-nature of this world. The tathagata has no own-nature. This world has no own-nature."

jeeprs said:
If your intention is to demonstrate that 'insight into impermanence' is not 'mystical', I don't think you can do that, because it is not as if such questions are clear and obvious for all to see.

Astus wrote:
My point is summed up with this: "as long as "kensho" is considered some special experience, it is mystified. How can a sense of unity with every being or the entire world make a difference in our attachment to thoughts and emotions?" As related to the linked article. It is arguing against the image of a special experience of unity with something transcendental. Not against that it takes time and effort to walk the path.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
If you are trying to say, in a round about way, that the five khandhas cannot be transcended it seems odd to me that the Tathgata has nothing to do with them, nor does a learned disciple. They reject them completely, in other words. So if they've left the burning house of the khandhas, where are they?
By the way, the Mahâsatipatthana Sutta says the 5 khandhas of grasping (upâdâna) *are* suffering.

Astus wrote:
If transcending the skandhas means not clinging to them, it is the very goal. If it means eliminating them and attaining a state beyond the skandhas, that is a false view of a self.

As in the above definition of the first noble truth, the "aggregates with grasping" are suffering. That's because of the grasping. Without grasping there is no suffering either. Just to make sure it is clear, the skandhas are simply the functions of seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing. A buddha without skandhas means that he can't see, hear, feel or perceive; no different from dead matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Context of "no practice"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mazu Daoyi taught:

A monk asked, "What is the cultivation of the Way?"
The Patriarch replied, "The Way does not belong to cultivation. If one speaks of any attainment through cultivation, whatever is accomplished in that way is still subject to regress. That is the same as the Sravakas. If one says that there is no need for cultivation, that is the same as the ordinary people."

The Patriarch said to the assembly, "The Way needs no cultivation, just do not defile. What is defilement? When with a mind of birth and death one acts in a contrived way, then everything is defilement. If one wants to know the Way directly: Ordinary Mind is the Way!" What is meant by Ordinary Mind? No activity, no right or wrong, no grasping or rejecting, neither terminable nor permanent, without worldly or holy. The sutra says, 'Neither the practice of ordinary people, nor the practice of sages, that is the Bodhisattva's practice.
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 63, 65, tr. M. Poceski)

"No practice" is the highest form of realisation. In Theravada the arahant is an "asekha" (non-practitioner) because there is no more practice required. In Mahamudra and Dzogchen they call it non-meditation. This is the insight into the buddha-nature that requires no perfection, no purification. Linji's teaching that there is no need to seek anything means to rest all grasping and attachment, give up all fabrications and abide nowhere. This is the practice of Zen.

However, Baizhang Huaihai distinguished the different teachings and practitioners:

The complete teaching discusses purity; the incomplete teaching discusses impurity. Explaining the defilement in impure things is to weed out the profane; explaining the defilement in pure things is to weed out the holy.
Before the nine-part teaching had been expounded, living beings had no eyes; it was necessary to depend on someone to refine them. If you are speaking to a deaf worldling, you should just teach him to leave home, maintain discipline, practice meditation and develop wisdom. You should not speak this way to a worldling beyond measure, someone like Vimalakirti or the great hero Fu."
(Sayings and Doings of Pai-Chang, p 29. tr. T. Cleary)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Stream-entry help!
Content:
lite said:
It's a study guide. I was looking for practice guide.

Astus wrote:
It includes practical teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
Whatever 'it' is, is certainly beyond the realm of discourse. But beyond that, it is hazardous to say what 'it' might be. If you say that 'there is nothing beyond the aggregates and discursive thought' then you are throwing away they key to liberation. But if you assert that what is beyond it has substantial existence then you're guilty of reification.

What a bind!

The way I interpret that Lin Ji saying is the mistake of 'seeking elsewhere'. It is in line with his constant teaching 'what you are seeking is right here'.

Astus wrote:
If it is "beyond the realm of discourse" you can't say anything about, nor can you argue for or against it. Can't even think of it. Then how can you say it is "beyond the realm of discourse"?

As for something being outside the aggregates, the Lankavatara Sutra (2.18) says, "those who do not understand the teachings of the Tathagatas of the past, present, and future, concerning the external world, which is of Mind itself, cling to the notion that there is a world outside what is seen of the Mind and, Mahamati, go on rolling themselves along the wheel of birth-and-death."

At another section (2.53): "... the Nirvana which is attained when there takes place the severance of the bondage conditioning the continuation of individuality and generality of the Skandhas. ... [this view] of Nirvana belong to the philosophers and are not my teaching." Similar misunderstandings regarding Nirvana is stated in 3.74.

Also, as it is taught in Yogacara and followed by many (e.g. Hakuin), for buddhas the 8 consciousnesses transform (paravrtti) into the 4 wisdoms, thus from contaminated aggregates we get pure ones (see Xuanzang quote http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=174056#p174056 ).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
The skandhas *are* suffering which is the first noble truth. They are also the killer (Mara). I would prefer to attach to the Buddha's teachings rather than the skandhas! If, as you imply, there is nothing beyond the skandhas, we are in deep doo-doo.

Astus wrote:
There is a difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging aggregates ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html ). The first noble truth is defined like this:

"the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. And which are the five clinging-aggregates? The form clinging-aggregate, the feeling clinging-aggregate, the perception clinging-aggregate, the fabrication clinging-aggregate, & the consciousness clinging-aggregate." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html )

Seeing the three characteristics of aggregates leads to liberation from clinging, but not annihilation ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html ). Indeed, the aggregates themselves are empty ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html ). When there is no identification, no obsession, then there is no problem ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.036.than.html ). If, as you say, the aggregates themselves were suffering, the Buddha himself suffered since he had had all five aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
Skandhas are the problem. Transcending them is the obvious solution. While it is true that the transcendent cannot present itself in the flux of inner, impermanent appearances, for example, the 3rd, 4th and 5th skandhas, we can, however, penetrate through such appearances, including even the 5th and, in doing so, recognize the transcendent, purely, on its own terms.

There is no mysticism with regard to the conceivable, impermanent mundane truth. There is only mysticism in recognizing the inconceivable trans-mundane truth.

Astus wrote:
Skandhas are not the problem, attachment is. If there is something beyond the skandhas, how could it be recognised? The skandhas include all mental functions, consciousness among them. If the transcendent you talk about is beyond the aggregates, it lacks all forms of perception and cognition.

"You who come here from here and there all have a mind to seek buddha, to seek dharma, to seek emancipation, to seek escape from the three realms. Foolish fellows! When you’ve left the three realms where would you go?"
(Record of Linji, p. 22-23; tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Chinese vs Japanese pure land
Content:
Greg said:
Really? I thought Korean monks followed the vinaya.

Astus wrote:
Yes, most of them. However, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taego_Order allows marriage.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Chinese vs Japanese pure land
Content:
shaunc said:
Does anyone know of a school of Buddhism that incorporates married clergy, meditation & pure land teachings.

Astus wrote:
Married clergy exists not only in Japanese but also Korean, Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhism. (But I don't see why having married clergy is relevant to the issue.) Aspiration to be born in the Pure Land and meditation exists in practically every Mahayana tradition. At the same time, you don't have to become a monk to practise any of that. Although mainstream Jodoshu and Shinshu are "exclusive nenbutsu" paths, there are other Pure Land oriented traditions in Japan, and even in those schools it's not a sin to do some meditation (as long as it supports nenbutsu).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: Stream-entry help!
Content:
Astus wrote:
Theravada instructions:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html

http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/thtut03.htm

Mahayana instructions:

http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?board=Dharma_Talks&y_number=19

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/mindtraining/introduction.php


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jinzang,

The order looks different than in the seven steps mind training. Establishing that all phenomena are mind is similar, but then here it emphasises first the dependent origination (2nd step) and then their emptiness (3rd step). Relaxing into the natural state comes after that with the unification of calming and insight (at least as I understand Sakya Trizin's explanation).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Koji said:
If the five skandhas cannot be transcended mystical unity and kensho are impossible.

Astus wrote:
There is nowhere to transcend them to. As the Heart Sutra says, they are to be recognised as empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
When does the present experience end?

Astus wrote:
Now.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
OK, then Batcheror's translation is misleading. The reason it was quoted for is its meaning that I think is now clarified.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
1. We are grasping moment here, so it does not have to last longer the for a moment. People go for pleasure knowing it will end. It is enough for the pleasure to be perceivable.
2. How do you define moment? Like Dogen? However, there is no such thing as impermanence as it is only the characteristic of phenomena.
Then why dwell on it?

Astus wrote:
A moment cannot be grasped. A moment is the present experience, and I use it in a similar way as point is used in Euclidean geometry, a conceptual element of time.

Why dwell on it? Just because something is conceptual it doesn't mean it is meaningless. In fact, concepts are the only things that have any meaning and they are probably the most important things we have.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
1. Show me in which point carpe diem refers to permanence. It doesn't, because it doesn't have to. As I said, for atheists there is nothing permanent, and still they fall into ignorance.
2. In one hand you promote impermanence, and in the other you rebuke pleasure because it changes. If everything is impermanent what is a reliable source of satisfaction?

Impermanence is very useful if we apply it to the goal of the whole life. Still, that will not refute carpe diem. Impermanence needs to go hand in hand with Anatta and Dukkha refute it.
In a long run it will become a view and then we can ask, is impermanence permanent?

Astus wrote:
The permanence in carpe diem:
- assuming that there is a permanent self
- assuming that there are permanent things to enjoy
- assuming that there is a permanent desire
(Note: permanence is anything that lasts, that stays from moment to moment)

There is no reliable source of satisfaction, that the insight to be gained from contemplating impermanence.

From impermanence both no-self and suffering are established.

Impermanence is permanent (this is like saying that emptiness and buddha-nature are permanent). However, there is no such thing as impermanence as it is only the characteristic of phenomena. It is only a conceptual idea, and in that sense it is also impermanent.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Title: Three Steps Insight Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
In Sakyapa instructions they use three steps for vipasyana (e.g. http://www.hhthesakyatrizin.org/teach_fourattach4.html ):

Step One: Outer Appearances Are One’s Own Mind
Step Two: Mental Objects Are Illusory
Step Three: Illusions Are Devoid of Inherent Nature

Why is there such distinction? If something is not really out there, it is illusory and without a self-nature. Is this meant to be investigating from different angles rather than separate stages?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
People found a workaround. It's called carpe diem. If everything is impermanent (and even science proves it is) lets enjoy the moment.

Astus wrote:
That is not the understanding of impermanence. When one thinks only about enjoying different sorts of pleasures then one believes the abiding existence of oneself, the object and even of pleasure. That is seeking happiness in pleasure. To see that pleasure is changing and lost every moment shows that it is not reliable, not a source of satisfaction, and attachment to it results in pain and sorrow.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
seeker242 said:
Was Bodhidharma wrong when he said it's hard to see, hard to fathom?

If it is not mystical, then how can a person hear 20 dharma talks about it, read 20 books about it, and still not experience it? If it is readily apparent and obvious, they should experience it after only 1 dharma talk yes? Or after only reading 1 book about it. But, that is highly unusual!

People hear the words "don't dwell on anything" and they say ok, that sounds good. I agree! Then they turn around and dwell on most everything. Why?
There are people who have been working on the Mu koan (or insert whatever koan here) for 20 years and still haven't got it. How can this be the case if it's readily apparent and obvious?

Astus wrote:
It all comes down to correct view and correct motivation. If one has the wrong motivation it is not possible to hear, understand and confirm the teachings. If one has wrong view, it is not possible to attain liberation. Motivation depends on one's personal background and then it is developed by the view. The view depends on the teachings received.

If a teacher can give the right teachings in an appropriate manner to a receptive student, there is no problem in getting results. You can look at the many sutras where the Buddha could help so many people. Huineng, Mazu and several other teachers of the Zen tradition helped hundreds of people attain sudden enlightenment.

If someone hears the teachings but fails to apply it, that is the lack of motivation. If someone hears only incomplete and misleading teachings, it results in the lack of correct view.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?

Astus wrote:
It is already known and agreed upon that the skandhas are impermanent (arising and ceasing). The self is necessarily permenent, not arising and not ceasing. If the self were the skandhas, the self would have to be impermanent. That is, being impermanent is a contradiction for the self, not for the skandhas. Therefore, the self cannot be the same as the skandhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
Why construct an object that is easier to comprehend? That would only make grasping easier. This quote you provided, about not dwelling, is ungraspable and makes everything ungraspable. That's the whole point, isn't it?
Impermanence is limited, because it enables temporary grasping. Everything will decay for sure, but some things last longer, thus we are tempted to grasp on them.

Astus wrote:
When it is easy to comprehend it can serve as a guideline. Without understanding the teaching it's not possible to apply it and gain results. It'd be like listening to the Dharma in a foreign language you don't understand. What's the benefit of that?

Yes, the whole point is to attain a non-dwelling mind. When everything is accepted and understood to be impermanent there is nothing left to dwell on. However, if we were told only "not to dwell on anything" then we didn't know how. Still, they are both fine and I posited the simpler teaching of impermanence against mystical-sounding teachings as outlined in the OP.

We are already in the habit of grasping everything. Impermanence shows that it's no use to do so. Some things seem to last longer, but understanding that they end anyway leads to letting them go. And when impermanence is applied to our actual experience, then it happens from moment to moment, and even in the present there's nothing that could be held on to, thus we arrive at not dwelling.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
that quote is saying IF the aggregates WERE self,it would lead to arising and decay
My quote says.........IF the aggregates WERE self,it would NOT lead to suffering.

Astus wrote:
Nagarjuna talks about the self, the Buddha talks about the skandhas. Different subjects.

Nagarjuna says that IF self=skandhas THEN self=impermenent (& suffering)
Buddha says that IF self=skandhas THEN skandhas=happiness (& permanent)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
To understand something is to dwell on it. If you dwell on understanding of impermanence     BAM!  and you are confused needing to return to understanding of impermanence. How unstable, fragile and stressful it is. Not because impermanence is incorrect, but because nature of understanding is unstable, fragile and stressful.

Astus wrote:
If the instruction is "don't dwell on anything" or "don't understand anything" they can still be construed as conceptual objects, but unlike with impermanence, they are more difficult to comprehend thus giving way to incorrect application.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 7:00 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.
One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.
The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.
You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?

Astus wrote:
If the skandhas were self they would not lead to suffering, therefore they are not self, this is what the Buddha says. Nagarjuna says that because the skandhas are impermanent they are not self. The three characteristics (trilaksana/tilakkhana) are impermanence, suffering, no-self. The SN quote mentions suffering, Nagarjuna mentions impermanence, and both prove that the skandhas are no-self. Where is the contradiction?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Thats weird the Buddha said the exact opposite
SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
(the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering

Astus wrote:
Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Koji said:
The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.
According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear.  There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."

Astus wrote:
What that quote refers to is not to identify with or attach to the aggregates. If you say that there is buddha-nature beyond the skandhas and dhatus then it has no relevance and no connection to any sentient being.

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates." (MMK 18.1)
Substitute self with buddha-nature and you get the same problem.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
oushi said:
Why bother with impermanence if you have such a neat explanation which excludes everything without holding any exclusion?

Astus wrote:
Because unlike talking about an unseen "core", "it", or "ocean", saying that all phenomena are impermanent is easy to understand and confirm, and also it doesn't sound like implying some essence/substance one should find. Saying one shouldn't dwell on anything is good, however, it lacks the method to do that.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 7th, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
'Mystical' is not 'vague' either. It is very precise and clear, but the subject is such that it is very hard to put into words.

Astus wrote:
Mystical, and the related word mystery, has always been connected to the concept of secrecy and hidden knowledge, therefore the meaning includes vague and difficult to understand. Just as you say, it is hard to put into words. And while it is common in a Christian and generally Western spiritual context to use "mystical" for a higher, divine knowledge, in Buddhism the expression for the highest realisation is "knowledge and vision of reality" (yathabhuta-jnana-darsana). It is not secret but apparent and as clear as day. As the original of the http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/three-things-cannot-be-long-hidden-the-sun-the-moon-and-the-truth-buddha/ goes:

"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 the three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed." (AN 3.131, tr. B. Bodhi)

jeeprs said:
If it's not a special experience, why is there a Zen teaching? I think this is a misunderstanding of the intention behind 'nothing special'.

Astus wrote:
What I'm emphasising with not being special is the directness (zhi/jiki 直) of Zen. As Bodhidharma says,

"If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever, and you'll succeed. I have no other advice. The sutras say, "All appearances are illusions." They have no fixed existence, no constant form. They're impermanent. Don't cling to appearances, and you'll be of one mind with the Buddha. The sutras say, "That which is free of all form is the buddha.""
(Bloodstream Sermon, tr. Red Pine, p. 27; X1218p3c12-15)

It is the immediacy, the straightforwardness of the instruction that is the hallmark of Zen and the meaning of sudden enlightenment. Once the teaching is shrouded in technical terms and poetic nonsense it cannot function as a liberating method. On the contrary, it becomes a source of confusion.

jeeprs said:
recall that the nature of the tree from which the apple was taken in the Biblical genesis: it was the tree 'of the knowledge of good and evil'. I suggest the underlying meaning is the same. ... The act of renunciation involves rising above that or 'dying to the known'. But it is no small undertaking.

Astus wrote:
Good and evil in the Bible is based on divine law (obeying or disobeying God). In Buddhism it is based on intention. However, Huihai is not talking about abandoning morality but only abandoning reification and grasping. In the same text he writes:

"Wisdom is reached when you can discriminate between good and evil, as well as other dualities, but, grasping none of them, remain free." (X1223p19c6-7)

So, while in the Bible knowledge is evil, in Buddhism it is wisdom.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 7th, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
What do you mean "at its core"?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 5th, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Title: Re: Dharma or Ethnic Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"I heard that some students in the West went to a high-ranking Tibetan lama and asked if they could call their teacher “Rinpoche.” In case you don’t know, “Rinpoche” means “precious one.” And the high lama said that they could call their teacher “Rinpoche” if they wanted to. That’s how the Tibetan system works. There are no official pronouncements of what someone will be called. For example, I can take someone as my lama and use whatever title I prefer, like “His Holiness” or “Rinpoche” or “Yizhin Norbu,” which is a name given to the Dalai Lama that means “wish-fulfilling jewel.” The lamas wouldn’t call themselves that; it is only the students who use those names to honor their teachers."
(Ringu Tulku: Confusion Arises as Wisdom, p 135)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 5th, 2013 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
so does the Dharmakaya of the Buddha have Skandha's?

Astus wrote:
It doesn't have skandhas, it is the skandhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: If samsara had a theme song...
Content:
Astus wrote:
If there should be a single theme song, I vote for this (both song and lyrics):

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


"One who stays focused on the beautiful, 
is unrestrained with the senses, 
knowing no moderation in food, 
apathetic, unenergetic: 
Mara overcomes him 
as the wind, a weak tree."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.than.html#dhp-7 )

"Behold the puppets prancing on the stage, and see the man behind who pulls the strings."
(The Zen Teaching of Rinzai, tr. Irmgard Schloegl)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
This all-pervading buddha-nature reminds me of the Huayan teaching on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharmadh%C4%81tu that end with the interpenetration of phenomena with phenomena, fully integrating relative and ultimate.

"First, [all] contain one to enter one.
Second, [all] contain all to enter one.
Third, [all] contain one to enter all.
Fourth, [all] contain all to enter all.
They simultaneously interpenetrate one another without obstruction or hindrance. ... This is to say that all and one are simultaneous. Setting both against each other, each has the two-fold headings and four sentences just introduced. They fuse into each other in a total manner without any obstruction as seen in other aforementioned principles."
( http://fodian.net/world/1884.html )

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche also has a nice poem, that fits more into the 3rd dharmadhatu view (interpenetration of principle and phenomena): http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/songs/concise-explanation-dharmadhatu-called-mind-itself-dharmadhatus-luminous-expanse


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The question about the relationship between buddha-nature and the aggregates occurred to me when I was reading Ringu Tulku's commentary to one of Gampopa's works. So, let's see first a Mahamudra work on the topic.

"The aggregates, the elements and the sense factors of beings have all from the beginning the true nature of awakened male and female buddhas and deities. As it is taught in all sutras and tantras, they are themselves buddha mind.
If, on the contrary, you assume that there is another superior buddha mind to be attained outside of your mind and believe that it is impossible that the extremely pure buddha mind exists within the mind stream of impure beings, that this is nothing but glossing things over and misinterpreting the vajra words of the secret mantra, you have distorted the meaning of the abiding nature and this is improper."
(Wangchug Dorje: Ocean of True Meaning, p 209-210, tr. Henrik Havlat)

Next, here is a Yogacara interpretation (note that there can be other Yogacara views, also note that what is discussed in the following passage from Xuanzang is not identical to the doctrine of "universal buddha-gotra" since there are several gotras):

"The 'meritorious qualities' (gunas) and the bodies and lands of the Tathagatas are comprised in the Skandhas, Ayatanas, and Dhatus, as it is fitting that they should be so comprised; but the Skandhas, etc., may be pure (anasrava) or impure (sasrava). ... It is certain that the qualities, bodies, etc., of the Buddha are comprised in the Dhatus. - Why? Because, according to the texts, all Samskrtas (conditioned dharmas) are comprised in the five Skandhas, all dharmas are comprised in the eighteen Dhatus and the twelve Ayatanas ; there is no nineteenth Dhatu (Vimalakirti). ... Let us therefore conclude that the eighteen Dhatus are found in the body of the Buddha but are absolutely pure (anasrava)."
(Ch'eng Wei-Shih Lun, p 787-789, tr. Wei Tat)

The Tiantai understanding of buddha-nature is also interesting, as it is used to cover the entire path as shown in this essay: http://academia.edu/1138952/Chih-i_and_Buddha-nature. It is useful to have a deeper appreciation of Dogen's presentation of the subject in his writing on buddha-nature ( http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/pdf/bussho%20translation.pdf ). He writes (with reference to a passage in the Platform Sutra where Huineng explains buddha-nature as impermanent to a monk asking about the Nirvana Sutra),

"Therefore, that the grasses, trees, thickets and groves are impermanent is the buddha nature; that humans and things, body and mind are impermanent — this is because they are the buddha nature. That the lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent — this is the buddha nature. Annuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, because it is the buddha nature, is impermanent; the great parinirvāṇa, because it is impermanent, is the buddha nature. All those with the small views of the two vehicles and the tripiṭaka master teachers of the sūtras and treatises should be “alarmed, dubious, and frightened” at these words of the Sixth Ancestor. If they are alarmed and dubious, they are grouped with Māra and the aliens."

Also (with reference to a Zen story where Nagarjuna manifested the buddha-nature by appearing as full moon),

"Though the buddha nature has a “spacious clarity” that takes a “shape like” “the full moon,” it is not the case that it lines up with the “round moon form,” let alone that its “explanation” is “sound or sight,” or its “body manifesting” is form and mind, or the aggregates, fields, and elements. Even if we say it completely resembles the aggregates, fields, and elements, it is “showing by which”; it is “the body of the buddhas.” ... The buddha body is the body manifesting, has a buddha nature that is the body manifesting. Even the measure of a buddha or the measure of an ancestor that speaks of and understands it as the four major elements and five aggregates is the hurried act of the body manifesting. Since we have called them “the body of the buddhas,” the aggregates, fields, and elements are like this."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Title: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is buddha-nature within one of the aggregates or not? The storehouse-consciousness in Yogacara is included in the consciousness aggregate (as shown in the Pancaskandhaprakarana). But often later schools claim that buddha-nature is beyond arising and ceasing, however, the aggregates are not. Assuming that buddha-nature is beyond the aggregates generates several problems (as argued in chapter 18 of the Mulamadhyakamakarika).

Since the doctrine of buddha-nature is cardinal in both East Asian and Tibetan Mahayana, I'd love to hear some answers for the topic's question.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Title: Re: Dharma or Ethnic Buddhism?
Content:
Huifeng said:
So, using English is "universal", and not another "culturally-specific expression of the Dhamma"?
The irony!

Astus wrote:
I think he meant using the local language that people can understand. To make the message the important part and not the exotic smells and sounds. Although I think it should be recognised that a foreign look can be attractive, for a while, but it results in the high expectations discussed in the article that eventually result in disillusionment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Title: Dharma or Ethnic Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is a recent article by Shravasti Dhammika that raises some very interesting questions: http://sdhammika.blogspot.hu/2013/06/dhamma-or-ethnic-buddhism.html

He writes there:

"When a western monk in the west asks to be addressed as ahjan or gelong, saydaw, roshi or sensei rather than their English equivalent he is identifying himself, not just as a Buddhist, but with a particular ethnic expression of Buddhism. When they chant in the Tibetan or the Burmese or the Chinese way the same impression can be created. ... Dhamma is universal, it transcends culture and ethnicity. The practice of the Dhamma is not the special preserve of any particular ethnic group. Let us practice the Buddha’s teaching, not Thai Buddhism, not Tibetan Buddhism, not Burmese Buddhism or any other culturally-specific expression of the Dhamma."

What do you think?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Where does Mahamudra fit in the Lamrim outline?
Content:
smcj said:
Which book of Brunnhölzl's?

Astus wrote:
It's the Center of the Sunlit Sky that I quoted from.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 23rd, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Where does Mahamudra fit in the Lamrim outline?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Thus, the explicit teaching of this Mahamudra is the Madhyamaka of emptiness free from discursiveness as taught in the sutra system. Ultimately, Maitrıpa’s key notion of “mental nonengagement” or “mental disengagement” is nothing but the subjective side of what is called “freedom from discursiveness.” The only way in which the mind can engage in this “object”—the absence of discursiveness— is precisely by not engaging in or fueling any discursiveness, thus letting it naturally settle on its own accord. In other words, the absence of reference points can be realized only by a nonreferential mind, since this is the only perceptual mode that exactly corresponds to it. This is stated many times in the sutras."
(Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 55)

Brunnhölzl goes through the subject of Mahamudra's relation to Madhyamaka in that chapter on "The Transmission of Madhyamaka from India to Tibet". Also, if you look at the Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Gampopa brings up Mahamudra where he is discussing the practice of prajnaparamita.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 22nd, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Title: Mystical Unity and Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
Inspired by http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2013/06/a-bit-of-what-kensho-is-and-a-bit-more-of-what-it-isnt.html, I'd like to raise the topic here about the meaning of seeing the nature of mind. James Ford mentions the mystification of kensho. However, as long as "kensho" is considered some special experience, it is mystified. How can a sense of unity with every being or the entire world make a difference in our attachment to thoughts and emotions? In Shengyan's http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/chan_garden/chan_garden3.aspx?sn=48 the experience of unity is the second stage of three. But if you look at what Shangyan taught as the actual insight, does that sound clear or rather vague and mystical? How about the following descriptions:

Q: What does "not dwelling anywhere or on anything" mean? 
A: Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding. This stage of achievement is also the non-abiding Mind, and the non-abiding Mind is the Buddha Mind.

Q: What is the non-abiding Mind like? 
A: The non-abiding Mind is not green, yellow, red or white. It is not long or short, nor does it come or go. It is not pure or impure, nor does it have birth or death. It is only deep and permanent stillness. This is the non-abiding Mind, which is also called the Original Body. The Original Body is the Buddha's Body, which is also called the Dharmakaya.
( http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment )

And this one:

Those whose mind has transcended
Existence and non-existence and abides no more [in them],
They’ve realized the meaning of conditioned existence,
The profound absence of objectification. 
...
If one possesses a locus,
One becomes attached or detached;
But the great beings who’re devoid of locus,
They have neither attachment nor detachment.
( http://www.tibetanclassics.org/html-assets/SixtyStanzas.pdf, 1, 58)

And this:

"Everything is coming and going, and we just let things come up freely and let them go away freely. We don’t try to fight against our thoughts or any other mental condition, and we don’t try to interact with them, either. The intention is not to grasp what is coming up from your consciousness. We actually do nothing but let the things happening within the mind just flow."
( http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/okumura-zazen.shtml )

What if we were told that the nature of mind is that all experiences are impermanent? That's quite obvious, isn't it? Is there anything mystical about that?

Then the question is, why isn't that what is taught in Zen?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Title: Accumulate Merit
Content:
Astus wrote:
"With no understanding of the meaning of absence,
But engaging only in mere studies
And failing to engage in meritorious acts-
Such base people are lost."
(Nagarjuna: Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, v. 31, tr. Thupten Jinpa)

"Practicing as a lay practitioner is conducive to cultivating merit, but disadvantageous to cultivating wisdom. For laypeople already possessing plenty of karmic blessings, it’s even easier for them to cultivate merit."
(Shengyan: http://sanghau.ddm.org.tw/en/Teaching/TheMeaning_of_MonasticLife.aspx )

Doing good things generates good karma, that's a basic doctrine of Buddhism. Charity is the most straightforward way to accumulate merit. The laity supports the monastics by donations and in return harvests merit. But besides material support there is another kind. The Dhammapada says: "The gift of the Dhamma excels all gifts" ( http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=354 ). In chapter five of the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8000 Stanzas it is explained that the greatest amount of merit is accumulated when one not simply copies and gives away the sutra but also explains them to others. In the Diamond Sutra it is regularly stated how memorising and spreading the sutra generates greater merit than any other kind of giving (e.g. ch. 11-16, 24). The Lotus Sutra has several chapters (17-19) describing all the immense merit gained by reading, reciting, teaching and simply hearing about the sutra. In the penultimate chapter (13) of the Vimalakirti Sutra we are told that the merit of that scripture is immeasurable, because "the enlightenment of the Buddhas arises from the Dharma, and one honors them by the Dharma worship, and not by material worship".

The http://www.fodian.net/world/0599.html Spoken by the Buddha for Ocean Dragon King, that teaches briefly about the four seals, states: "if one can accept, uphold, read, and recite them, and can understand their meanings, although he spends little effort, he will gain lots of blessings. The merits and virtues that he gains will be the same as reading and reciting eighty-four thousand Dharma-Stores." That is, by understanding the four seals one covers all the other sutras and the merit of their studying.

But there is more. Tendo Nyojo (teacher of Dogen) is often quoted, "Just-sitting is all you need. You don't need to make burning incense offerings, meditate upon the names of buddhas, repent, study the scriptures or do recitation rituals." The sole practice of zazen is enough. Linji goes one step further:

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. 301, tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzigar Kongtrul Madhyamikavatara 2013
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
distinctions between Cittamatra, Madhyamika, whatever!

Astus wrote:
It depends on which Madhyamaka or Yogacara you mean. There are quite a few versions of both of them, including unified theories found in later Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?
Content:
Indrajala said:
In the context of this discussion, I'm really talking more about Nara and Heian Buddhism which preserved a lot of Tang Buddhism. Shinran and Nichiren are not representative.

Astus wrote:
But it's quite obvious that Shinran and even Nichiren were in the end more successful in spreading the Dharma to a larger community than any Nara school, and Shinran beat even Heian schools. I think what is important is to find the right way to connect to the largest number of people and bring them the correct teachings.

From my perspective, old Buddhist art is more like curiosity than anything religious. I mean, I live in Europe, so the Buddhist temples I see are very recent or more likely a normal room or house decorated by some statues and pictures. True, they don't give the same impression as a Gothic church, but at the same time, old Christian churches are visited mostly by tourists rather than flocks of believers.

As I said before, religions change. Returning to "the original" is always an arbitrary choice. You could say that by simplifying the decoration in modern temples they are returning to an even earlier time of simple viharas uncontaminated by Hindu and Chinese popular beliefs.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What you have listed as lost in China are art forms/objects and rituals. Chinese Buddhism didn't stop after the Song dynasty. And although this is a biased statement, I don't think that the Dharma lies in sculptures and ceremonies. Humanistic Buddhism is a newer trend, but it is just one of the many other schools. For instance, Chung Tai Shan doesn't seem to be strongly Humanistic (although they have their own modernisations to some extent). Besides the four big churches, Taiwan has others, and there is also mainland China where many ancient articles have been destroyed but some are still there. Have you seen the documentary "Amongst White Clouds"? I doubt that those hermits were influenced by new trends.

Similarly to the Japanese, Koreans like to say that they have preserved the original Tang era Buddhism. The Taisho canon itself was based on the Tripitaka Koreana. Nevertheless, saying that any school or country has the "original" and "ancient" is no different from "returning to the original". You can't have what existed thousand years ago. Religions change too. This is the fundamental doctrine of Buddhism, every compounded thing changes. Only the Dharma is eternal.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Manhood.
Content:
Astus wrote:
We should see that the changes in the conception of the Buddha (Shakyamuni, and a buddha in general) are results of doctrinal development in Buddhism. If we go through the stages in Mahayana (that is itself a syncretic view) we practically arrive where we have started. That statement that mind itself is buddha and there is no other buddha outside of the mind brings the entire colourful set of teachings back to everyday people who can realise and embody the principle of buddhahood in this very body. In East Asia this is called the "buddha vehicle", in Tibet it is simply Vajrayana.

"There are a bunch of shavepate monks who say to students, ‘The Buddha is the Ultimate; he attained buddhahood only aft er he came to the fruition of practices carried on through three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas.’ Followers of the Way, if you say that the Buddha is the ultimate, how is it that aft er 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 diff erent from ours.
You say, ‘Th e thirty-two [primary] features and the eighty [secondary] features indicate a buddha.’ Th en must a cakravartin also be considered a tathāgata? We clearly know that these features are illusory transformations.
...
Followers of the Way, true buddha has no figure, true dharma has no form. All you’re doing is devising models and patterns out of phantoms. Anything you may find through seeking will be nothing more than a wild fox-spirit; it certainly won’t be the true buddha. It will be the understanding of a heretic."
(Record of Linji, p. 19-20, tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 16th, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Compassion and loving kindness in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
The question is what you consider Zen practice. Helping others, charity, teaching, and practically any act can come from compassion. Walking the Mahayana path itself is based on compassion, the wish to liberate all beings. If you are thinking of a Zen specific meditation technique to cultivate compassion, there is and there isn't such. There is, because buddha-mind is naturally compassionate, it is its active force. There isn't, because compassion is inherent in the buddha-mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Attention - Impending Structure Change
Content:
Astus wrote:
A new structure is going to be set up shortly:

Bodhisattvacarya
Mahāyāna Buddhism, East Asian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Sūtra Studies, Academic Discussion

Upāya
Meditation; Ethical Conduct; Engaged Buddhism; Prayers and Aspirations; Wellness, Diet and Fitness (sub: Alternative Health)

General Dharma
Exploring Buddhism, Open Dharma (previously: Dharma-free-for-all), Personal Experience, Dharma Events, Dharma Stories

Buddha Lounge
Lounge, Media, Language, News & Current Events


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Title: Re: Compassion and loving kindness in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are some Soto Zen related quotes:

"When great compassion is deep within you, and your wish to spiritually aid sentient beings everywhere is well seasoned, there are no such obstructions."
(Dogen: Keisei Sanshoku)

"If you can have compassion for your loved ones, have compassion for them. To have compassion for our loved ones means letting go of them."
(Dogen: Gyoji)

"Keep in mind that kindly speech arises from a loving heart, and a loving heart makes compassion its seed. You should explore the idea that kindly speech can have the power to turn the very heavens around, and it is not merely a matter of praising someone’s abilities."
(Dogen: Bodaisatta Shishobo)

"Based on this, what is inherent in leaving home life behind is having compassion for all living beings as if they were one’s own offspring. This means not giving rise to evil acts, and our body and speech being in mutual accord."
(Dogen: Shukke Kudoku)

"There is a very easy way to be a Buddha: Do not do any evil. Do not try to cling to life and death but, with deep compassion, work for all beings. Respect your elders and sympathize with those younger. When you do neither deny things nor seek them or think and worry about them - then you are called a buddha. Don't look for anything else."
(Dogen: http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/sho.shtml )

"Remain always compassionate, and dedicate the limitless virtue of zazen to all living beings. Do not be arrogant; do not be proud of yourself and of your understanding of dharma. Being arrogant is the way of outsiders and ignorant people."
(Keizan: http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/zzyk.shtml )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
I believe that commodification and commercialisation of Buddhism is a necessary step in spreading the Dharma. Ordinary religious practice can be embraced by a growing number of individuals only when it seems useful, interesting, satisfying and it is easily accessible. Salvation of the masses takes simple practices. Scholars and ascetics are the elite specialists, the rest is satisfied with a few nice words and colourful pictures.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are always religious stories (hagiographies, myths, legends, etc.) that serve a purpose within their own context. It is an error to believe that such stories are actual historical accounts, that's not why they are told and retold again and again. It's like the tales told to children and films people like to watch, all that forms a cultural environment. Buddhist stories convey certain values and principles, but they are not direct reflections of actual historical events. Also, stories are usually written (long) after the events supposedly happened, and they are meant for a specific audience. For instance, Zen koans tell more about how people imagined Zen in the Song dynasty rather than anything historical from the Tang era.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
The point of what has been said is that conventional Mahayana does not make use of the sense objects as Vajrayana does.  It rejects them as unsatisfactory, relies upon antidotes, etc. such as the charming image you paint of women.  The way to cultivate non-attachment in conventional Mahayana is by avoiding the objects.  Of course, the goal is to develop mental non-attachment but the way to do it is to avoid the object and use thought constructs to condition oneself.  That's all that has been said.  It's really not a controversial opinion.

Astus wrote:
My point is that there is more than one method in Mahayana, not just avoiding objects. Sure, there are restrictive precepts, they are applied by every Buddhist who has took vows from 5 to 250. Even Vajrayana samayas tell you things one shouldn't do. My argument is against the idea that outside of Tantra all there is is renunciation as the only way to deal with desire.

It is understood very well that desire doesn't lie in the object:

"The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality, not the beautiful sensual pleasures found in the world. The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality. The beauties remain as they are in the world, while the wise, in this regard, subdue their desire." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html )

And there several methods known to handle passion (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.21.00.irel.html#ananda ). It is also not true that in Vajrayana you don't aspire to become free from desire, since it also uses several techniques to manage them. Saying that changing an impure vision into a pure vision constitutes a whole different system, while methods like switching an unwholesome mind to wholesome and such are just renunciation is overlooking how both are nothing but changing one's attitude.

The path of renunciation in a Dzogchen book is defined this way:

"In general, the Sutra teachings are known as the path of renunciation because an individual following this method may be obliged to give up a whole variety of things, such as sex and alcohol, and to avoid performing negative deeds. ... The idea is that by avoiding or eliminating the factors in our lives which inflame our feelings or fuel our emotions, we don't experience the same kind of problems. It is as simple as that!" (Lawless & Allan: Beyond Words, p. 17)

That is, this statement is based only on the Vinaya, as if that were the essence of Hinayana and Mahayana. First of all, just by avoiding sex doesn't make one free from desire, so it'd be a very weak solution. Second, there are also lay practitioners who don't live a celibate life.

"People who see that their mind is the Buddha don’t need to shave their head. Laymen are Buddhas too."
(The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p. 39)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
When the householder bodhisattva possesses three Dharmas, having stayed at home, until perfect unsurpassed awakening, he never enjoys the five desire objects, and in that way develops the root of virtue.

Trisambaranirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Because of this sūtra in the past, having abandoned the five desire objects, I will always take the [Mahāyāna] vows [samvara] at the six times.

Ārya-prabhāsādhana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Astus wrote:
Not enjoying a sunset is not the same as not seeing a sunset. So, what is abandoned is attachment and desire, not the sense data. Even when contemplating the foulness of the body the point is not to see no bodies at all but not to see it as desirable.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
oushi said:
How would you people interpret the underlined part?

Astus wrote:
"Why? It is without creation and without destruction..." i.e. empty, without any essence. You just let it come and let it go, not grasping and not rejecting. So, you don't sever it and you don't not sever it.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
to give up attachment to the five desire objects, the five desire objects themselves are given up as part of the path.

Honestly, why is this so hard to understand?

Astus wrote:
Because it means, as I read it from your words, that one gives up what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched. That is, the person becomes completely insensitive and incorporeal. I doubt that either sravakas or bodhisattvas would aim for that.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Astus wrote:
Something regarding precepts (and renunciation):

"How is “keeping the precepts purely”? That means in twelve hours, stop all involvement outwardly, and still your mind inwardly.

Because the mind is still, you are peaceful while seeing a scene. Your eyes don’t slip outward when consciousness arises by the seen, and your consciousness doesn’t slip inward by the scene you see. The outward and the inward don’t interfere each other, so we call blockade. We say blockade, but it doesn’t mean “to block.” The senses of ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are just like that.

That is called the Mahayana precepts, the unsurpassed precepts, also the unequalled precepts. All the monks, young or old, must keep the precepts purely like that."

( http://www.quangduc.com/English/zen/37zen_ancientmaster.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Title: Re: Standard Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
I prefer to distinguish Tibetan/Northern and East Asian/Eastern Mahayana. We may also talk about different eras of Mahayana in India. In Tibetan Buddhism what is called common Mahayana is based mainly on specific shastras and it is very structured and mostly left as it is because it has little relevance to their actual daily practice that is primarily Tantra. In East Asia there is different situation, because Chinese Buddhism gradually developed its own systems based mostly on sutras.

While Madhyamaka is the main form of Mahayana philosophy in Tibet, in East Asia it has long been forgotten. The Abhisamayalamkara is used in Tibet to interpret the Prajnaparamita works, in China it was initially the Dazhidulun (大智度論; Mahaprajnaparamita-upadesha by Nagarjuna) but that was somewhat superseded by indigenous schools. Yogacara played a somewhat stronger role in East Asia than in Tibet, but while in Tibet they have it now as "Shentong Madhyamaka", in East Asia it is still a marginal thing.

In East Asia the ruling teachings are Tiantai, Huayan, Jingtu and Chan, in Tibet it is Madhyamaka and Vajrayana. To say that at least the paramitas and bodhicitta is common probably misses the point how such terms are used in the two Mahayana groups. For instance, saying that bodhicitta is separated to conventional and ultimate, that's a Tibetan thing. In East Asian Mahayana it is a given that a bodhisattva wants to liberate all beings, the 4 vows are regularly recited, but there is no special training for that like tonglen. The paramitas are known of course, but they are not emphasised and they are considered to belong to a gradual path while teachings like Chan are the sudden path.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
oushi said:
what standard Mahayana is?

Astus wrote:
There is no such thing. It simply means the general features that most of the Mahayana schools have.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
oushi said:
What if a faulty idea is introduced, or an ideas that can be easily misinterpreted later on? Is there a way of cleaning the standard Mahayana content? Because it is inevitable that some faults will/was introduced, and later structures were build upon them.

Astus wrote:
Doesn't really work like that. Mahayana contains a wide range of teachings, and then specific traditions and teachers select some they prefer and emphasise those. When someone starts talking about "cleaning the standard Mahayana" (or something similar), it is just a prelude to a new idea under the cover of "restoring the original".


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 4:21 PM
Title: Re: Any translation of this volume 高僧傳
Content:
Astus wrote:
I've seen a translation of a collection of biographies of eminent nuns in English, alas I can't remember the book's title. Otherwise I don't think any biographical record has been fully translated, except for the travel stories.

It has an English wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_Eminent_Monks

And those collections are also used to compare it with Chan records, like here: http://www.chibs.edu.tw/ch_html/chbj/07/chbj0716.htm and here: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1998_num_85_1_3835

In Chinese DDM/DDBC has a http://dev.ddbc.edu.tw/biographies/gis/ to search for biographical info: http://authority.ddbc.edu.tw/


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Uncertain steps...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Chan and Pure Land practices have no general structures, it is whatever the teacher says or what you follow. So for that practically any Chinese or Vietnamese community/temple is a good place to go. If you like Thich Nhat Hanh (based on your list of books), their website also contains teachings and he has introductory works too.

Besides the BuddhaNet site, for East Asian Buddhism there are some good places to start.

http://blpusa.com/category/buddhism-in-every-step - Ven. Xingyun's teachings covering lot of subjects
http://chancenter.org/cmc/publications/free-literature/ - some of Ven. Shengyan's introductory works; there are also http://chancenter.org/cmc/multimedia/video/
http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice - Thich Thien Tam's great summary of the Pure Land teachings
http://www.wwzc.org/book/long-distance-training-program - they provide distance training in Soto Zen


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: The balance between compassion and wisdom
Content:
Astus wrote:
In formal sessions where there is the section on awakening bodhicitta and the section on dedicating merit, they cover the compassion part, while the vipashyana section in meditation and studying sutras the wisdom part. In daily life you maintain good intentions towards others and at the same time non-attachment to illusory appearances, thus compassion and wisdom are combined. In other words, you try to be nice and not to hang on to (unwholesome) emotions and thoughts.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
bodhicitta is the basis of the bodhisattvayāna, and that has both relative and ultimate aspects.
Your bodhisattvayāna is a bird that is wounded in one wing.

Astus wrote:
"When one is endowed with the meaning of emptiness, there is not a single thing which in not included in this path."
(The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p. 252)

Bodhicitta without the ultimate aspect is a heap of good intentions, but that is not the same as saying that everything else is rejected.

Having generated the great mind to realize bodhi, it is necessary to recognize what constitutes the essence of the bodhi mind. Now, as for the substance of the bodhi mind, if one fails to generate it from one’s true mind, there is no source through which one might succeed in reaching bodhi. On account of this, it is essential that  one differentiate clearly [what it is]. Only then does this result in Dharma practice which corresponds to correct causality.
...
The Buddhas of the ten directions, all beings, and this mind of mine—“in these three, there are no distinctions.” It is this which is identical with the essence of the bodhi mind. One forsakes this and, failing to recognize it, one instead recognizes [only] one’s own false thoughts. Consequently one engages in a continual process of dying and being reborn again and thus endures suffering shoulder- to-shoulder with the various species of birds and beasts. How could it be that one who is truly a man would not feel shamed by this?
(Peixiu: Exhortation to Resolve on Buddhahood, p. 6-7; tr.  Bhikshu Dharmamitra)

Also,

"Since it is the mother of the Bodhisattvas,
It is also the mother of the Buddhas:
The prajñāpāramitā
Is foremost among the provisions essential for enlightenment."
(Nagarjuna: Guide to the Bodhisattva Path, v. 5; tr.  Bhikshu Dharmamitra)

Malcolm said:
In any event, this stream of replies and responses is far away from the original point, which is that Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation, just like Śravakayāna.

Astus wrote:
The topic is about dealing with desires, and you restrict Mahayana to a single approach that desires can only be rejected. My position is that Mahayana is more than that and encompasses several methods.

"For the bodhisattva, afflictions accord with his nature.
He is not one who takes nirvāṇa as his very nature.
It is not the case that the burning up of the afflictions
Allows one to generate the seed of bodhi."
(Nagarjuna: Guide to the Bodhisattva Path, v. 79)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is not a statement about means.

Astus wrote:
Prajnaparamita is the basis of the bodhisattvayana, and there are no methods to apply without it. It is prajnaparamita that liberates all beings and it includes all means. Isn't the inseparability of compassion and wisdom the essential realisation of a bodhisattva?

Malcolm said:
Pāramitāyāna is a gradual path, one that requires infinite lifetimes to complete.

Astus wrote:
The bodhisattva liberates all beings without conceiving any person that liberates or is liberated. How can you complete such a path? Let me quote a bit from the " http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html " that was, and still is, popular in East Asia.

The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, “When a Bodhisattva sits in a bodhimaṇḍa, does he attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi?”
    Mañjuśrī replied, “When a Bodhisattva sits in a bodhimaṇḍa, he does not attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi. Why not? Because the appearance of bodhi is true suchness. Not finding a speck of dharma to capture is called anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi. Because bodhi has no appearance, who can sit and who can rise? For this reason, I see neither a Bodhisattva sitting in a bodhimaṇḍa nor anyone realizing anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi.”
    Mañjuśrī said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, bodhi is the five rebellious acts, and the five rebellious acts are bodhi. Why? Because bodhi and the five rebellious acts are free from duality. Hence there is neither learning nor learner, neither perceiving nor perceiver, neither knowing nor knower, neither differentiating nor differentiator. Such appearances are called bodhi. In the same way one should view the appearances of the five rebellious acts. If there are those who say that they see bodhi and have attained it, we should know that they are the ones with exceeding arrogance.”

Malcolm said:
Actually, prajñā takes many eons to perfect according to Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
The Buddha told Śāriputra, “If good men and good women, having heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā, can come to resoluteness in their minds, not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, know that they stand on the Ground of No Regress. If those who have heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā are not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, but believe, accept, appreciate, and listen tirelessly, they have in effect achieved dāna-pāramitā, śīla-pāramitā, kṣānti-pāramitā, vīrya-pāramitā, dhyāna-pāramitā, and prajñā-pāramitā. Moreover, they can reveal and explicate [the teachings] to others and can have them train accordingly.”
    The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, “In your opinion, what is meant by attaining anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi and by abiding in anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi?”
    Mañjuśrī replied, “I have no anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi to attain, nor do I abide in the Buddha Vehicle. Then how should I attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi? What I describe is only the appearance of bodhi.”


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Astus wrote:
treehuggingoctopus,

Then let's say instead of "realising" it is experiencing emptiness, that is, I don't mean an intellectual comprehension of it but first hand personal experience. And that experience is the same for everyone.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
LastLegend said:
Is this for all practitioners of different levels/capacities? How does one enter the gate directly?

Astus wrote:
It really depends on who you ask. Different traditions say different things. Ask a Soto Zen teacher and they say you just have to do zazen. Ask a Dzogchen teacher and they advise you to do the preliminary practices and/or receive introduction. Ask a Jodoshu teacher and they might say you better just focus on the recitation of the name of Amita Buddha and aspire for birth in the Pure Land. The Lankavatara Sutra tells you that everything is only mind, and the prajnaparamita sutras teach you that all appearances are nothing but conceptualisations.

Some say that their practice is only for people of the highest capacity to boost your enthusiasm, while others say that it is accessible to all to strengthen your confidence. Usually both are said at the same time.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Insofar as I know, 'realizing emptiness' in Vajrayana and Dzogchen means quite a different thing.

Astus wrote:
Something else than non-fabrication is fabrication. There is only one suchness, no matter what tradition.

As the 3rd Karmapa wrote (An Aspirational Prayer for Mahamudra, tr. J. Rockwell; http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/mahamudra.pdf ),

"Free from mental fabrication, it is Mahamudra.
Free from extremes, it is Great Madhyamaka.
This is also called the Great Perfection, the consummation of all.
May we have confidence that understanding one realizes all."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
What do you mean by 'realizing emptiness', Astus?

Astus wrote:
To see that no appearance has a self(-nature), attaining the view that is free from the extremes. Just the usual.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Ultimately once the wisdrom realizing emptiness is achieved this is true. But in order to realize emptiness one requires a substantial amount of merit which is why we need an integrative path that integrates method and wisdrom. Also, from a Mahayana POV Sravakas and so forth have realized selflessness but due to their not cultivating the method side of the path they are not able to achieve the final goal of full enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings.

Astus wrote:
Saying that one needs merit to realise emptiness is equal to saying the requirement for good karma. Meeting with the Dharma, with Mahayana, with teachers, etc. is already the sign of merit. And as the sutras say, not becoming frightened of emptiness is the sign of a mind ready for realisation. Charity, repentance, morality, meditation and studying are all beneficial, however, to see emptiness one has to actually look at it (paraphrasing the Zen motto of "direct pointing" and "seeing nature"). Thrangu Rinpoche likes to say (e.g. Essentials of Mahamudra, p. 166-167) that the difference between sutrayana (madhyamaka) and vajrayana (mahamudra) is that the former uses analysis, inference while the latter uses direct perception. My small objection is that such a definition is true only where common Mahayana is reduced to a theoretical background. The sutras themselves are very practical, at least that's how many of them were intended to be used.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mahāyāna does not just exist as a teaching on ultimate truth.

Astus wrote:
Mahayana encompasses all teachings there are. However, the main path is the bodhisattva path as the practice of the six paramitas. Practising the paramitas requires insight into emptiness, that is the way emphasised by the prajnaparamita texts and others. Also, in Chan the first thing one needs is to see the nature of mind, practically the same thing as realising emptiness. Practising only on the level of everyday truth is good for accumulating worldly merit, but that's only the path of "humans and gods" and not even the sravakayana.

Malcolm said:
The path of renunciation suggests, in both Nikaya schools as well as Mahāyāna, that phenomena are to removed -- and this is generally accomplished with vows. For example, monks remove the phenomena of others genitals; they remove the phenomena of handling precious things. More importantly, the abandonment of sense objects is seen as a condition for development of samadhi in both Nikāya Buddhism and Mahāyana.

Astus wrote:
Yes, vows are useful. At the same time, if you look at the Skill in Means Sutra, the Definitive Vinaya sutra (in the Ratnakuta), or the Vimalakirti Sutra, it is an important quality of bodhisattvas to roam freely in samsara and liberate beings. Vimalakirti himself is a great example here. You may say then this is only the result of the path, however, as I write above, this is the path of the paramitas.

Malcolm said:
nothing of the sort. The citation you provide is no different than the peacock eating poisoned plants metaphor...

Astus wrote:
You said,
But common Mahāyāna offers no methods for ordinary persons to take sense objects in to the path. How do ordinary Mahāyāna practitioners practice? For the most part their practice is no different than that of non-Mahāyāna Buddhists. i.e. śīla, samadhi and prajñā.
And for that was my response quoting the Vimalakirti sutra about differentiating the sravaka and the bodhisattva path, and that the afflictions are not rejected but they are actually required. In this case I have not said that it represents the view that the afflictions equal enlightenment, although they are not completely different either. Zhanran in his commentary (T38n1778_p0683c26-28) on the section explains that the five aggregates become nirvana, like ice turns into water. It is in the commentary on chapter 4 where Zhiyi mentions regarding Vimalakirti's discussion with Maitreya how affliction is no different from bodhi (T38n1777_p0530c17-22). Since it is the 8th chapter that describes a rather common approach, as you have said, I don't see your above comment justified.

Malcolm said:
You don't change afflictions, you train in pure vision. By slowly transforming your vision, since ordinary vision is caused by afflictions which generate concepts, counteract that with sadhana practice, completion stage etc.
You use afflictions just as they are, but by changing how you relate to the world, by transforming your world, slowly you realize the state of Mahāmudra without giving anything up at all.

Astus wrote:
With establishing prajnaparamita as the correct view there is nothing to improve or get rid of. As it says in chapter 22 in PP8000, purification means simply the extent one uses prajnaparamita. To this you may say that this is again the ultimate view, and that in order to reach that one has to follow a sravaka-style practice by renouncing the world, etc. As I see it, to hop on the Great Vehicle, one needs prajnaparamita (ch. 1, PP8000).

The training on the path of transformation is with pure vision, correct view, and the application of visualisation, etc., therefore while it may be said that afflictions are left just as they are, affliction is something where there is impure vision. So once there is pure vision, it serves as an antidote. Being afflicted is one view of the world, being unafflicted is another. This is how prajnaparamita is a universal solution for all defilements, because it removes the root of the problem.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
I see, so for you a bodhisattva is solely someone who has realized emptiness. Well, that certainly does leave a lot of people out.

Astus wrote:
"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." (Diamond Sutra, ch. 17, tr. C. Muller)

"Nothing real is meant by the word 'Bodhisattva.' Because a Bodhisattva trains himself in non-attachment to all dharmas. For 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, tr. Conze)

Of course, there are other views, like the 5 paths and the 52 stages, where they consider the realisation of emptiness and the practice of the paramitas a far away attainment. That kind of thinking naturally led to the emergence of sudden teachings where awakening came closer again. So while I don't make the difference here between ordinary and noble bodhisattvas, it is with the intention to show that the bodhisattvayana, as presented by the sutras and several teachers, is not just how it tends to be represented in later "sudden teaching" texts (i.e. as something that only incompetent fools choose over their direct path to buddhahood).

Malcolm said:
No, in terms of relative truth Mahāyāna teaches that phenomena themselves are afflictive. Also in the Nikāya schools, phenomena themselves are regarded as afflictive and a cause of suffering.

Astus wrote:
If "phenomena themselves" are afflictive, then are phenomena should be removed or the afflictions? If ignorance lies in appearances then shouldn't the realm of nothingness or complete annihilation be nirvana? As I understand it, the problem is with believing appearances to be self, and that's why the realisation of emptiness is the solution.

Malcolm said:
In realty the intent of such statements that you introduced is that in Mahāyāna, the contemplation the emptiness is for abandoning sense objects.

The victor stated that desire objects, wealth and the three planes of existence
are similar to illusions, mirages, a moon in the water, and apparitions.

Astus wrote:
They are like illusions because they are empty, and seeing things as empty only means non-attachment but not annihilation. Why do you say then that they are abandoned?

Malcolm said:
But common Mahāyāna offers no methods for ordinary persons to take sense objects in to the path. How do ordinary Mahāyāna practitioners practice? For the most part their practice is no different than that of non-Mahāyāna Buddhists. i.e. śīla, samadhi and prajñā.

Astus wrote:
"you should understand that all the afflictions constitute the seed of the Tathāgata. It is like not being able to attain the priceless jewelpearl without entering the ocean. Therefore, if one does not enter the great sea of the afflictions, one will not be able to attain the jewel of omniscience." (Vimalakirti Sutra, ch. 8, tr. McRae)

This sutra says quite the opposite, that one needs all the defilements to walk the bodhisattva path. On the other hand, it is similar to what you say in that it attributes the "total renunciation" view to a lower path and the "freedom in samsara" view to itself. The prajnaparamita sutras in general recommend the realisation of prajnaparamita itself as the way of the bodhisattva, and that has no problem with the sense objects at all. And even if someone secludes oneself to have a nice and calm environment for meditation, I see nothing wrong with that, nor anything impossible or difficult to achieve.

Honen gave this advice regarding practice:

"If you cannot stay in one spot and do it, then do it when you are walking. If you cannot do it as a priest, then do it as a layman. If you cannot do it alone, then do it in company with others. If you cannot do it and at the same time provide yourself with food and clothing, then accept the help of others and go on doing it. Or if you cannot get others to help you, then look after yourself but keep on doing it. Your wife and children and domestics are for this very purpose, of helping you to practice it, and if they prove an obstacle, you ought not to have any. Friends and property are good, if they too prove helpful, but if they prove a hindrance they should be given up." (Honen the Buddhist Saint, p. 75)

Malcolm said:
Attachment is used on the path transformation to eliminate attachment. Desire is used to eliminate desire, etc.
The path of self-liberation is a little difference since self-liberation is non-attachment (but it is not so simple as that).

Astus wrote:
You don't use afflictions on the path of transformation just as they are, but with the view that they are essentially pure (empty), and so it associates pure visions to impure ones. Thus it is not exactly using the very same afflicted mentality to defeat another afflicted mentality, but more like a different way of using antidotes. Self-liberation is also based on the understanding that appearances are empty, so the only thing to do is to stay with that realisation thus stopping all contrivances (i.e. I-making and mind-making). As Traleg Kyabgon says, "It is simply a matter of maintaining our awareness (sampajanya)." (Mind at East, p. 14)

Ajahn Chah talks in a similar fashion,

"This is our foundation: to have sati, recollection, and sampajañña, self-awareness, whether standing, walking, sitting, or reclining. Whatever arises, just leave it be, don't cling to it. Be it like or dislike, happiness or suffering, doubt or certainty, contemplate with vicara and gauge the results of those qualities. Don't try to label everything, just know it. See that all the things that arise in the mind are simply sensations. They are transient. They arise, exist and cease. That's all there is to them, they have no self or being, they are neither "us" nor "them." They are not worthy of clinging to, any of them." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/heartfood.html#samma )

Malcolm said:
It is obvious that renunciate paths (as opposed to the general dissatisfaction with samsara) are less possible then before. Actually, it is easier to be dissatisfied with samsara now, but it is much less easy to do something about it.

Astus wrote:
Obvious from what? In older times there were persecutions, wars, famine, no printing, no schools, no internet, and strong state control. Today you can go to quite a few Buddhist monasteries and just stay there, or travel around. If you want to sell everything and move into the mountains, nobody stops you.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
Austria was briefly officially declared a Buddhist country by law.

Astus wrote:
There is some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax, (also check the German version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer ). In Hungary you can choose to send 1% to an "established church" (new invention by the current government, but it still includes some Buddhists) and another 1% to a civil organisation. Similar tax based funding also exists in Slovakia for instance.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
Perhaps it's just best to make one's way to Thailand and take ordination in a small village and abandon the Mahayana institutions.

Astus wrote:
Plum Village is open for new applicants: http://new.plumvillage.org/about/becoming-a-monastic/, so you don't have to leave Mahayana institutions behind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
Homeless people do not actually manage.  They die on the streets.

Astus wrote:
Can't speak for every country, but in Hungary mostly those die who stay outside in the winter instead of going some place warm for the night. I've met people who have been homeless for 10+ years. And I'm not saying it's an easy life, but I'm quite sure you can beg enough money a day to have food and even more, plus the social services.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So would it be possible for somebody to be a beggar monk while living in a western country?  Sure, but they will have to live in shelters or on the street and rely on soup kitchens etc... run by the state and other religious organisations. Like all homeless people do.

Astus wrote:
Exactly. Like all homeless people do. Another thing that is not considered is that while "[w]e do not really have a donation culture" we have a tax paying culture, and at least in some European countries tax money also goes to churches. The key is to have enough followers who choose your church. Spiritual services (to some level) are expected to be free because (traditional) Christian churches are open for the public throughout Europe. But there are other religious communities that can manage quite well even without a large support base, have temples and community houses built, even establish their own theological colleges. The difference between those and Buddhists is that their followers are religious people and see themselves as such. Or maybe even this is not that big a difference. It's just that on the one hand the monastic lifestyle is not a popular one, and on the other Buddhism is simply not strong enough yet to support dozens of renunciates in every major city. It shouldn't be forgotten that in Asia the Buddhist monasteries usually had state support.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Astus wrote:
Has any modern bhikshu/ni tried to actually live from begging? I mean, homeless people can manage somehow, why not a few bald people too?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
this is the function of the two truths.

In truth, this statement by Nāgārjuna illustrates how to practice according to Mahāyāna:

Astus wrote:
It is a letter written to a worldly ruler. As Baizhang said, "If you are speaking to a deaf worldling, you should just teach him to leave home, maintain discipline, practice meditation and develop wisdom. You should not speak this way to a worldling beyond measure, someone like Vimalakirti or the great hero Fu." (in "Sayings and Doings of Pai-Chang", p. 29) Note that both Vimalakirti and Fu were lay people. This is simply recognising the different inclinations and the appropriate methods. Bodhisattvas have no trouble with samsara because they understand how afflictions are enlightenment, it is not some abstract far away goal but the path itself, because a bodhisattva practises prajnaparamita.

"To the extent that beings take hold of things and settle down in them, to that extent is there defilement. But no one is thereby defiled. And to the extent that one does not take hold of things and does not settle down in them, to that extent can one conceive of the absence of I-making and mine-making. In that sense can one form the concept of the purification of beings, i.e. to the extent that they do not take hold of things and do not settle down in them, to that extent there is purification. But no one is therein purified. When a Bodhisattva courses thus, he courses in perfect wisdom." (PP8000, ch. 22, tr. Conze)

Zen teaches the same thing,

"Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything. Outside of mind there is no other Buddha, outside of Buddha there is no other mind. Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil, without reliance on either purity or defilement, one realizes that the nature of offence is empty: it cannot be found in each thought because it is without selfnature. Therefore, the three realms are mind-only and 'all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma.'"
(Mazu Daoyi, in "Sun-Face Buddha", p. 62)

Malcolm said:
But in former, you do so without ever giving up such objects, and in the latter, one must give up objects. This is the essential difference between the path of renunciation and the path of transformation.

Astus wrote:
As above, the dharmas need not be rejected or removed. Even in Theravada it is taught that the problem is not with the skandhas but with attachment ("I-making and mine-making").

Malcolm said:
But Chan is still a path of renunciation, even if its view is beyond accepting and rejecting objects, there is still subtle and not so subtle accepting and rejecting concerning relative and ultimate truth.

Astus wrote:
It is with the realisation of emptiness that one can walk the bodhisattva path itself. If there were "subtle and not so subtle accepting and rejecting" then how could it be non-abiding?

Malcolm said:
Yes, this is why it is not part of the path of transformation because "...those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside." And it is not teaching a path of self-liberation either because the refrain in each verse is "...those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside."

Astus wrote:
Is there still attachment on the path of transformation and self-liberation? If yes, then how can it be called transformation and self-liberation? If no, it also abandons attachment.

Malcolm said:
It is unrealistic for lay people (and even bhikṣus) to abandon sense pleasures in this day and age, therefore, it is best to use a method where sense pleasures are used for one's own purposes as part of the path, hence the reason for the Vajrayāna path of transformation. Of course if you do not have Vajrayāna methods you try and be free from accepting and rejecting ala Chan and Zen, but that is a slow path since it lacks skill methods, from a Vajrayāna perspective.

Astus wrote:
Shinran quotes Shandao ( http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssVI-15_36.htm#34 ), "The Tathagata already knows that foolish beings of the latter age possessed of karmic evil and defilements are incapable of visualizing forms and fixing the mind on them. How much harder is it to seek realization without visualizing forms; it is like a person lacking transcendent powers building a house in the air."

From the perspective of the Pure Land school, Vajrayana is no different from the other schools of self-power and in the Dharma ending age it's unlikely that anyone is capable of attaining liberation through them. Therefore, the nenbutsu of the other-power is the best and virtually only choice anyone has who aims for enlightenment.

Obviously, only those following that path accept such an argument. Therefore, saying that renunciation is less possible than before is a statement valid only for those who want to practise something else.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm said:
You can find such statements in Mahāyāna sutras, but such statements do not constitute the path of Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that they teach one thing but practise another? The non-differentiation of samsara and nirvana exists in Mahayana from its early times. That view is part of the practice in both ethics and meditation. Chan and Tiantai are good examples.There are also sutras like the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra and others where it is expressed in practical terms.

Malcolm said:
In Vajrayāna one does not transform afflictions. That is not what "path of transformation" means in Vajrayāna. You don't experience anger, for example, and then try to change it into the mirror-like wisdom.

Astus wrote:
Later you write:
The path of transformation means transforming our relationship with the world, sentient beings and our own body (through empowerment and sadhana) from an impure relationship into a pure relationship. The path of transformation involves taking the result as the path -- for Buddhas, sense objects are not toxic, they are not afflictive, they are pure goddesses. When sense objects and consciousnesses are purified through the process of sadhana, the afflictive power of sense objects is lessened, and the links between sensation and craving is weakened and finally severed. For example, we replace our sense of identity with a Buddha identity -- the so called "divine pride" which is the essence of the creation stage, etc. In the course of working with pure vision, it is necessary to engage sense objects in every different way, smells, colors, tastes, sounds, sights, and so on.
You change the view from attachment to objects to non-attachment to objects. This is no different from what Ajahn Chah said, or what you find in Mahayana. True, no colourful deities are involved in the process most of the time.

Malcolm said:
Further, we have to examine what is meant by "affliction" is bodhi.

Astus wrote:
It means that affliction (klesa) is empty, therefore there is nothing to reject or transform.

Malcolm said:
Perfect example of the path of renunciation in toto. I do not see at all how, for example, this relates in anyway to the path of transformation.

Astus wrote:
These are the five methods:

1. Switching from unskilful to skilful object.
2. Understanding the drawbacks.
3. Abandoning the unskilful.
4. Abandoning proliferation.
5. Strengthening awareness.

For instance, changing from unskilful to skilful is no different from changing from impure view to pure view. Abandoning the unskilful object itself or the following proliferation is simply letting it self-liberate. Are the objects rejected? No, only the attachment to them, otherwise arhats would be blind and deaf. The sensation stays, only grasping goes.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Title: Re: New to Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are some communities you could contact in Korea and they speak English (or at least some of them):

http://www.hanmaum.org/eng/
http://wakeupandlaugh.wordpress.com/
http://www.bels.kr/
http://www.korea4expats.com/article-buddhist-temples-meditation-seoul.html


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea of the decline of Dharma has been around since the beginning. Piya Tan explores the concept in his http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1.10-Dharma-ending-age-piya-proto.pdf within the Pali Canon. In China the Three Stages School (Sanjie jiao 三階教) founded by Xinxing (信行, 540-594) was among the first to propagate the end of Dharma (mofa 末法) and based on that claim that its own teachings are the most appropriate and viable. The idea that only this or that path is the available one in this age has been in use for a while now, so any statement with such a reasoning has little weight, just like the grandiose claims for superiority.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
wisdom said:
In essence the Mahayana approach goes beyond accepting and rejecting objects of the senses as inherently good or bad...

Malcolm said:
Well, no, it doesn't — Mahāyāna regards sense objects as negative, something to be rejected.

Astus wrote:
This is from a Theravada teacher (who was also a Vinaya specialist),

"For the really earnest student, the more sensations the better. But many meditators shrink away from sensations, they don't want to deal with them. This is like the naughty schoolboy who won't go to school, won't listen to the teacher. These sensations are teaching us. When we know sensations then we are practicing Dhamma."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/living.html )

The doctrine that "affliction is enlightenment" (煩惱即菩提) is well known in East Asian Mahayana schools like Chan and Tiantai. In Vajrayana they say that the sutra path is renunciation, the tantra path is transformation and the dzogchen path is self-liberation (e.g. http://www.dzogchen.org.au/index.php?page=dzogchen ). And here is what a Chan master said,

"There are many methods in practicing Buddhism. The Lesser Vehicle practices “eradicating afflictions.” The Great Vehicle (Mahayana) “transforms afflictions.” In the Ultimate Vehicle “afflictions are bodhi.” Each method is centered on the mind. In the end, they all enable sentient beings to attain unsurpassed complete enlightenment."
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

Although there are different traditions they are aware of the various methods that can be used in order to deal with desire, anger and ignorance. In a single teaching the Buddha gave five different methods to deal with unskilful thoughts, and these techniques could be matched with the above three: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: "In One Lifetime"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Nilasarasvati,

I don't recommend taking the idea of sudden or gradual side too seriously. And the emphasis is on idea here, not the actual systems. The many teachings are there to address different inclinations people have. Or we can say, the teachings express certain individuals' approach to the Dharma. As I see it, a teacher's style is determined by his personal experiences he had on the path. Then specific teachers become prominent according to circumstances (within and without the Buddhist community). Naturally, all styles and forms of teaching claim superiority to itself, so such statements practically mean nothing when comparing teachings. What is important is to find what feels personally close and inspiring.

Seeing the teacher as buddha is central in Vajrayana as it uses devotion to allow students to receive blessings. That is, if you trust the teacher you are open to the teachings and can accept them and follow them. No devotion means a closed mind, no blessings means not hearing the teaching. This is a very skilful method, but it requires faith. Actually, faith is important on every Buddhist path, only its style is different.

A teacher is someone who can give you guidance on the path. It depends on the student whether this or that teacher is helpful for a specific problem. A teacher doesn't have to be someone in an official post. It really depends on what actually works. When you receive the Dharma from someone, that person is as the Buddha himself, the first refuge, and this is true for every Buddhist path.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: "In One Lifetime"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides the usual teachings about enlightenment in this life, there is another view one can find.

"Sometimes, for the sake of weak-willed men, they show how to attain perfect enlightenment quickly by skipping over the stages of the Bodhisattva. And sometimes, for the sake of indolent men, they say that men may attain enlightenment at the end of numberless aeons. Thus they can demonstrate innumerable expedient means and suprarational feats. But in reality all these Bodhisattvas are the same in that they are alike in their lineage, their capacity, their aspiration, and their realization of Suchness; therefore, there is no such thing as skipping over the stages, for all Bodhisattvas must pass through the three terms of innumerable aeons before they can fully attain enlightenment. However, because of the differences in the various beings, there are also different ways of teaching them what to practice."
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html )

In Chan (and especially Korean Seon) there is a prominent idea called "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice", where while there is a direct entry, it is followed by gradual practice. At the same time this is not necessarily understood as the same level as the bodhisattva vehicle but rather the supreme one vehicle.

In modern Chinese Buddhism, thanks to the influence of Ven. Yinshun (1906 - 2005), the bodhisattva path is emphasised in Humanistic Buddhism instead of "buddhahood in this life". In his http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f3.htm he differentiates bodhisattvas to those who attain no-birth (i.e. the stage of no regression, 8th bhumi) gradually and those who attain it suddenly. Then he says,

"It attains understanding of voidness, equality, and great wisdom. It does not attach itself any longer to the three realms of existence nor Nirvana. Nor will it attach itself to the fact that it is ferrying the suffering sentient beings over to the other shore of Nirvana. Neither will it attach itself to attaining Buddhahood. It will work vigorously to cultivate the Six Perfections. The awakened mind will utilize the expedient path to help all beings. These are the ones who have the Bodhisattva spiritual foundation."

Master Yinshun in the book Human-Centered Buddhism categorises both mature Chinese Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism as Late Mahayana based on the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, something that teaches enlightenment in this life. He compares Late Mahayana to the old age period when people turn to theistic beliefs, fear decline and death, thus they are eager for fast and easy solutions. (p. 49-50) He also says later,

"People fantasize about instant buddhahood and are in such a rush to get there they cast aside the bodhisattva practice. What nonsense!" (p. 77)

Ven. Shengyan (1930 – 2009), discussing the question Can One Become a Buddha Instantaneously? (Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p. 100-103), using the Tiantai teaching of six identities (六即), says that the Chan claim for sudden buddhahood is only rhetoric, and it's just an initial insight that they actually mean.

The meaning of this criticism of buddhahood in this life is that the theory is contrary to what we can actually see in the Buddhist world. Even respected teachers don't claim any high attainment, so what can we say about ordinary practitioners who have trouble following even the basic precepts? It is this gap between the ideal and the actual that these modern teachers address.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: "In One Lifetime"
Content:
Astus wrote:
The majority of East Asian Mahayana schools claim that enlightenment in this life is possible, the exception is the Pure Land school where they guarantee your liberation in your next life in Sukhavati. However, since Buddhism is not a centralised church, different teachers can say different things, including the requirement for aeons of bodhisattva practice. Or it can be also said that the important thing is to become a bodhisattva - who is an enlightened being by the way - and then continue to help all beings.

Talking about the Soto school, their basic doctrine is practice-enlightenment, i.e. that the moment you do zazen right there you are buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Condoms Available to Monks in Bhutan
Content:
Astus wrote:
In Thich Nhat Hanh's "Freedom Wherever We Go" (i.e. a revised pratimoksha) the precept against male masturbation is moved from "sanghavashesha" to the "payantika" rules, same level as it exists in the bhikshuni rules. So it is a minor offence for both, while in traditional pratimokshas it is minor only for nuns. On the other hand, touching or letting be touched by another person with both parties having sexual intentions is a defeat for nuns and community restoration for monks. There's hardly any way around the rules to justify the acceptance of sexual activities between monastics.

On the other hand, that's just the theory. There are also social factors to be considered, as mentioned already. In fact, the Vinaya itself was meant to harmonise the monastic community with the prevailing social norms. If the lay community is happy to support a family temple - as in Japan - it can also preserve and carry on the Dharma. There are family lineages in Tibet and they are also doing quite well. I'm not saying that the rules should be thrown out the window, but flexibility and diversity of the Buddhist clergy is a good thing. I believe that it is in agreement with the Mahayana idea to allow a greater variety of Dharma professionals than what is in the Vinaya.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 4th, 2013 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Walking Away
Content:
Unknown said:
"And what is the stress of separation from the loved? There is the case where desirable, pleasing, attractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations do not occur to one; or one has no connection, no contact, no relationship, no interaction with those who wish one well, who wish for one's benefit, who wish for one's comfort, who wish one security from the yoke, nor with one's mother, father, brother, sister, friends, companions, or relatives. This is called the stress of separation from the loved.

And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings subject to birth, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to birth, and may birth not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and may aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html )

Astus wrote:
What is the way to become free from stress, from suffering, from being unsatisfied? There are just so many answers to that in Buddhism. The short one is to see how it is only you creating the trouble, it is a mind made experience and it originates from believing that it is real and not just some concept. And there are longer ways, as other's have already suggested.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 2nd, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Buddhism Compatible with Evolution?
Content:
jeeprs said:
As I mentioned, I don't deny the fact of evolution. What interests me is the meaning of it -  or the absence of meaning, which amounts to the same.

Astus wrote:
Evolution has no meaning in the sense that there is no higher purpose behind/above it. Samsara has no meaning either. Beings are stuck in their habits and that's it, it's just a fact of life. There is no big plan, nobody designed evolution nor samsara. The big difference is that if one looks only at evolution, i.e. the bodily life, it teaches only violence and hedonism. Understanding samsara, however, means realising the futility of all mundane pursuits and the true cause of suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 2nd, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Is Buddhism Compatible with Evolution?
Content:
Jikan said:
But the bigger question in this discussion is here: what use is a worldview as such? Why bother adopting worldviews, why take them on, why identify with one Weltanschauung or another?  Better to try to get at the reality of the situation.  here I'm following on jeepr's post in this thread, which is a good one.

Astus wrote:
A philosophically conscious person who willingly adopts a view has a reason for taking it up - instead of staying in the usual naive slumber of ordinary humans. The philosophy of one's own, a worldview, has enormous consequences. It leads and organises almost everything what one does. Therefore the correct view, something that fits reality, is also important, as it defines one's success in life. Delusions are bad because they mislead one and fail to fulfil their purpose, i.e. assisting in life. That means that finding the truth is necessary.

It is not at all meaningless whether biological evolution is acceptable in Buddhism or not. Denying evolution is equal to rejecting natural science, and that sounds bad for Buddhism as it puts into the category of extremist religions. What has always been the method of Buddhists is to incorporate the ruling philosophy of a culture and transform it in a way that is fitting for the Dharma. For instance, the Buddha accepted all the ancient Indian gods but he denied the existence of their omnipotence, omniscience, eternal life and their creating power. Basically, gods were rendered meaningless. Natural science can be subdued in a similar way, saying that its area of expertise lies only within the realm of the four material elements. The physical universe has only a minor role in Buddhism. Just as formerly Buddhists could use traditional Indian and Chinese theories about the human body, they can do the same with modern scientific doctrines. The Dharma has no need for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana#V.C4.81yus and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_%28Chinese_medicine%29, chemical elements are an acceptable explanations too. And if scientists say that life on this planet evolved from dead matter, it is because they understand life as the physical body. Buddhism in fact agrees with this, saying that the body is nothing else but the combination of the four elements.

What Buddhism has to leave behind to accept evolution is only its Indian cosmology, but that's something very few ever cared about. The teachings about consciousness and karma remain intact, just as the path of liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Noble Onefold Path?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Everything depends on what kind of books you read. If they are introductory teachings to Zen, it is only expected that they talk a lot about the basic practice, and even that can be a little simplified (e.g. zazen as breath counting). But I don't think this is a problem.

There are books that talk a lot about superficial things, like social philosophy, rituals, arts and such. They are more distracting then useful in terms of understanding Zen, although they can be entertaining nevertheless.

An important thing to understand about Zen in general is that as a Mahayana Buddhist school its primary style is very simple and direct. "See nature, become buddha", that's the motto. Philosophising about complex theories and the finer points of ethics can be beneficial, but it's not what Zen is about. Even the many forms of meditation and levels of attainment are pointless sophistries on the sudden path. But it's a mistake to think that Zen exists separately from the other teachings of Mahayana, rather it accepts and incorporates them all. The main difference between Zen and other schools is that it takes personal insight as the source and method of interpreting the teachings and not a specific scripture or teacher. And that doesn't mean the followers of other schools lack insight. Zen is just not that systematic.

Dogen himself studied the Buddhist canon and quoted from many sources in his writings and teachings. Sure, he taught about zazen, but that's just a small part of the entirety of his works. But only once zazen is comprehended and experienced is one ready to to plunge into the other things.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Social Work & Christian Evangelism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Christians, Muslims and smaller groups like the Krishna followers all do charity works by helping the poor. And that is very good. If Buddhists want to follow that, by all means, there's never enough soup kitchen and shelter. On the other hand, Buddhism should also offer mental help. Now, religions are of course in the business of "saving the soul", and Christianity is founded upon converting the lower classes to Jesus. Buddhism is different in that, it's sramana style is not attractive for poor people who have more mundane worries, and when you are lost in debts and you have to feed your kids, just leaving it all behind to become a monk doesn't sound very ethical, so they are left where they are. Buddhism can offer similar afterlife heavens as any other religions, except that it won't last for ever and there is no saviour to ask help from. What Buddhism specialises in is mental training, and that's what makes it popular among richer citizens who want not only a nice home but also a cosy mind. So, it's more like a hobby, a therapy. Still, it is something that the other religions are not really known of, unlike social work.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Social Work & Christian Evangelism
Content:
Astus wrote:
"the concept of a religious master has existed in Western religions for many years. That is why Western religions have been able to spread all over the world. For example, among aborigine tribes in the mountainous regions of Taiwan, I have seen many Catholic nuns and priests as well as other Christian missionaries and ministers, who have gone deep into the aborigine regions to learn the native languages, live native lifestyles, and help the natives to live more comfortably and safely. Because of them most of the aborigines have become Christians.  The dedication of these missionaries is worthy of our admiration. They are not reluctant to leave behind the free and comfortable life of Western society. Across the oceans, living a hard life in Taiwan’s remote land and poor villages, they think nothing of enduring hardship. It is as if one were exiled to a barren region. Most of us probably would not want to go there.

...

A true Buddhist master must have the spirit of offering oneself and all one has in order to practice, uphold, and propagate Buddhadharma. A Buddhist master should have this kind of mindset and the will to be compassionate. If one becomes a monastic only to have a peaceful life or escape from reality, this attitude will certainly produce a selfish, vexed “ghost” and it would be impossible to attain liberation. In addition, without the proper mindset to begin with, vexation would get more serious and more frequent with time.

A correct starting mindset is what I have just said: “Practice, Uphold, and Propagate Buddhadharma.” These attitudes are sequential and interrelated: when our practice begins to gain some footing, we need to protect and uphold the Buddhadharma –  to spend our time and energy on all events related to spreading Dharma. As we protect and uphold Buddhadharma, we effectively propagate it, and in turn, we learn more about it. Spreading Buddhadharma can be carried out all the time and under all circumstances. One does not have to wait until one is as old as I am to feel comfortable doing it, and it does not have to be done all by talking. We can do it by our action, our mannerisms, and our viewpoint. In any case, there are many ways to spread Buddhadharma. Do not let a closed mind shrivel away or stifle your potential for growth."

( http://sanghau.ddm.org.tw/en/Teaching/TheSpirit_of_MonasticLife.aspx )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Whatever happened to the wicked dwarf?
Content:
SunRay said:
The idea behind being that the Boddhisattva kills the evil being he takes it's karmic burden upon himself willingly entering the hell realms for the sake of the others? Demon dissolves into Rigpa kinda thing..

Astus wrote:
Taking over another's karma is impossible in Buddhism. In the story the captain simple prevented the robber committing murder, that is, generating very bad karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: Whatever happened to the wicked dwarf?
Content:
Astus wrote:
No mention of a wicked dwarf, but the story is the same:

"And the robber died to be reborn in a world of paradise." (The Skill in Means Sutra, p. 74)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Dodatsu said:
Also, one should remember that the interpretation on the concept of Nirvana differs in the Mahayana and Theravada traditions.

Astus wrote:
Regarding that point there was a separate topic created: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=12817


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
LastLegend said:
If Nirmanakaya is the physical manifestitation, then Sambhogakaya is the mental manifestation such as wisdom or compassion. Then the two cannot be separated.

Astus wrote:
There are many interpretations of the three bodies teaching, just like practically every Buddhist doctrine have various meanings taught by different masters. Still, such a distinction what you say about physical and mental is is something influenced by our modern concepts. Something that has a form is rupa, and sambhogakaya buddhas definitely have forms and bodies, it's just a different kind than the nirmanakaya, similarly to the difference between gods and humans.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
what does the True Pureland sects say about the sutras that say Amitabha Buddha will be going into Parinirvana???
or do they not have any material that covers that subject?

Astus wrote:
I'm sorry but I have no knowledge whether anyone has addressed that issue. Maybe someone did, maybe not. I don't have the sources to answer.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Vairochana
Content:
Astus wrote:
In Mahayana generally buddhas are considered real beings, and they are also embodiments of different qualities and teachings most of the time.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
sinweiy said:
he used to be from esangha i met last time, studing Japanese PL. that's his email.  although i am not into Jap PL.

using the triple bodies that all Buddhas have. why must it be a credit of Tibetan interpretation?

i was taught by MCK, that there are 3 kind of gate in Buddhism. Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

Astus wrote:
In that case I think I know who Rev. Anraku was (died a few years ago), and he wasn't really a representative of any actual Japanese Pure Land school, plus he had some peculiar ideas about Buddhism.

Amitabha Buddha as he appears in his land is sambhogakaya. Of course, just as every buddha, there is dharmakaya, however, it is generally irrelevant for the Pure Land path. Dharmakaya is simply the ultimate reality, and for ordinary deluded beings it is imperceptible. You can see that briefly explained on the Shinshu explanation regarding Amitabha I linked in my previous post.

What I referred to as Tibetan is the idea that Amitabha is nirmanakaya and Amitayus is sambhogakaya. In East Asia the two names are not differentiated that way, they are names for the same buddha. So, when they say Amituo or Amida, it stands for both names.

As for MCK's categorisation of different Buddhist paths, that's his interpretation. In Jodoshu and Shinshu the Pure Land gate (Jodomon) is contrasted with the gate of the sages (i.e. every other Buddhist schools where they try to attain enlightenment through wisdom). This site sums up Honen's ways of selecting the exclusive nenbutsu as the correct path: http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHINGS/senchaku/process.html. Shinran gives a similar explanation: http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssVI-15_36.htm#35. As for Chinese Pure Land teachings, there are many views depending on teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Title: Re: What state is this?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is good not to get caught up in things, that's what non-clinging is about, and it requires mindfulness. Correct mindfulness in Zen is sometimes called the sword that kills and gives life, because you know when to let go and when to get hold of something. It is wisdom, discerning good and bad. While sitting on the cushion it's OK to let everything come and go, when you get up there are things to take care of, people to talk to, etc. So if you are mindful on the cushion you can bring that to all activities. Therefore, if you want to check your practice, see how you act in different circumstances, how thoughts and emotions sway you or if you are the captain of the ship.

When sitting in meditation you should check if there is any clinging to whatever state you think you are in. If you see how feelings and thoughts come up, do you imagine yourself to be the witness observing all this? Do you have thoughts about what you observe occurring and passing? Is there a gap between subject and object? If there is a gap, if you are the witness and you judge or consider occurrences, that is the beginning of watching the mind. If there aren't really any thoughts about phenomena but you are the watcher, that is still holding on to an imaginary self. If there is no position that you rely on and doing meditation is nothing special at all, and there is awareness, it is indeed proper Zen practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Who is this Rev. Anraku you quote from, what is the source?

Here is a short series of answers regarding Amitabha from a Shinshu perspective: http://www.nembutsu.info/standard/amida.htm

And the Jodoshu view: http://www.jsri.jp/English/Pureland/LINEAGE/budbod.html

As for the word Amituo/Amida (阿彌陀 / 阿弥陀), it is just the transliteration of the Sanskrit word "amita":

amita 	2 mfn. (3 %{mA}) , unmeasured , boundless , infinite RV. &c. ; without a certain measure S3Br. Sus3r. &c. ; (%{a4-mitam}) ind. immensely RV. iv , 16 , 5.

It is related to words like "measure" and "metre" via the https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/med- root.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
sinweiy said:
Amitabha is an Emanation body; the corresponding Enjoyment body is Amitayus, "infinite life"-propitiated for longevity; the Dharma body is Ananta-prabha, "boundless illumination."

Astus wrote:
That's not the same as what is taught in the Pure Land schools, but the Tibetan interpretation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
LastLegend said:
Astus, Pure Land is there to liberate sentient beings. If there are no sentient beings to liberate, will Pure Land be there?

Astus wrote:
Of course, when there are no sentient beings there is no use of buddhas either. Alas, the number of beings to be liberated is endless.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 27th, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
sinweiy said:
Sambhogakayas do have a beginning but do not have an ending. it's the beginning of the very first time a person attained Buddhahood(a.k.a Source). One attained the Bliss body, there after, the bliss is forever, we do not say when one attained Buddhahood, they will become deluded again.  Dharmakaya, Truth body is the the one without beginning non ending. nirmanakaya always have a beginning and ending, on going cycle.

Astus wrote:
And that's why there was a debate regarding whether Amitabha is nirmanakaya or sambhogakaya. Shandao said it's the latter, consequently there is no end of Amitabha's presence to save all beings.

LastLegend said:
My reasoning is this Pure Land and manifestations of Amitabha are conditioned relatively to Samsara that they are merely there to help sentient beings. They are still subject to change. We must remember that "lives" and anything that takes "forms" are subject to change. But does not mean nothing exists in a nihilistic sense. Apparently things come to into being due to conditions, and depart due to conditions ending. Where does Buddha go after Parinirvana?

Astus wrote:
Sukhavati is not within samsara, see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_spiritual_realms. Although there is change since beings come and go, etc., similarly to the fourth dhyana related heavens and above, it is not destroyed by anything. Parinirvana is related to nirmanakaya buddhas only, and it is only a display to urge beings for liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 26th, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
plwk said:
Now you do...

Astus wrote:
That is, sutras propagating Amitabha say he lives indefinitely, those about Avalokitesvara say he will take over Sukhavati. So the answer lies in defining which sutras one regards as definitive. For the Pure Land schools it is the former.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 26th, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Please help me understand the Buddhist takes on these key terms. I'm hoping they can be "defined" in just a few words, i.e. the essence sans ornamentation ... ?
mind: ...
consciousness: ...
awareness: ...

Astus wrote:
Definitions are usually found in abhidharma works. That's what they were written for. Generally, consciousness means the six sensory consciousnesses and the four mental aggregates. The below one has a Yogacara take on it. (the sanskrit is a bit garbled because of copy-paste)

What is the definition of the aggregate of consciousness (vijnanaskandhavyavasthana)?
It is the mind (citta), the mental organ (manas) and also consciousness (Vijnana).

And now, what is the mind (citta)? It is the store consciousness of all the seeds (sarvabljakam alayavijnanam) impregnated by the residues (vasanaparibhavita) of the aggregates (skandha), elements (dhatu) and spheres (ayatana). The result-consciousness (vipakavijnana) and the appropriating consciousness (adanavijnana) are the same thing also, because of the accumulation of those residues (tad vasanacitata).

What is the mental organ (manas)? It is the object of the store-consciousness (alayavijnanalambana) which always participates in the nature of self-notion {manyanatmaka) associated with the four defilements, viz. the view of "self' (atmadrsti), love of "self" (atmasneba), pride of "I am" {asmimana) and ignorance (avidya). And this is present everywhere (sawatraga), in favorable (kusala), unfavorable (akusala) and neutral {avyakrta) states, except in the case of one facing the Path {margasammukblbhava), the attainment of cessation (nirodbasamapatti), the stage of the learned (asaiksabbumiV5 and also the consciousness that has just this instant ceased among the six kinds of consciousness.

What is consciousness (Vijnana)? It consists of six groups of consciousness: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental consciousnesses.

(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p. 21-22; tr. Boin-Webb)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 26th, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Which would you recommend: vipassana (which I did regularly a few years back) or kusulu-type "resting in being" meditation? I'm more keen on the latter, because it's new to me. But I'm still not sure, after all this time, what exactly "resting in being" means. Maybe I should mix it up, vipassana followed by kusulu 10-20 minutes each kind of thing?

Astus wrote:
You have to find it out for yourself, because only you can tell what works and what doesn't. First of all, in order to be able to do proper vipashyana, you have to practise yourself in shamata first, otherwise the whole thing is not meditation just thinking about this and that. There are many good manuals you can follow, more detailed than Vivid Awareness, or you go to a Dharma centre and follow their programme. Analytical meditation is meant to ease your mind, to help you get over your doubts about the truth of the Dharma. So the second thing to do is to learn the relevant teachings that you use for your investigation in meditation. Although the important points are covered in most manuals, it is useful to comprehend the details of such things as the five aggregates, the eighteen dhatus and the various forms of reasoning applied (as in Madhyamaka). Then if you are through with the analytical part in a session you finish by resting in the conclusion that is emptiness, thus the final result is no different from directly going for non-conceptual resting, except that this time you sorted out your doubts instead of just putting them aside for a short time.

If you don't know where to look for meditation instructions, here are some options (based on Madhyamaka):

Kamalashila: Bhavanakrama (commentaries are also available by HHDL, Thrangu Rinpoche, etc.)
Tsongkhapa: Lamrim chenmo
Gen Lamrimpa: How to Practice Shamatha Meditation; How to Realize Emptiness
Thrangu Rinpoche: The Middle-way Meditation Instructions


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 25th, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
I'm much more of a theorist than a practitioner. But I'm challenging that, am close to establishing a daily practice, on the cushion (actually, cross-legged on a straight-back armchair). It's not easy! Pondering comes very naturally for me, direct experience (meditation) not.

Astus wrote:
If you allow me, I'd like to recommend that instead of jumping for non-conceptual methods (i.e. Dzogchen), start with a more systematic approach. I say that because vipashyana as analytical meditation can very effectively remove conceptual attachments.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Advaitans argue (passionately, unyieldingly!) that brahman cannot be refuted. Christians have thousands of pages of scripture explaining why their God/Truth is the only true God/Truth. Ditto for every religion and most (all?) scientific disciplines. Why should I -- anyone? -- believe any of these assertions? (I don't.) I see them all as metaphors, stories. Some no doubt come closer to modelling reality than others, but stories are just ... stories. Mind, awareness, consciousness, enlightenment ... compelling metaphors, not the real thing. But I digress ...

Astus wrote:
Very true. Buddhism has volumes of arguments to prove how the Buddhadharma is true and the others are wrong. If you go that way, it is called the path of the pandita. Those who already possess some faith but lack intellectual interest can go on the path of the yogi, following the instructions of a teacher. However, Buddhism is not that black and white. Everybody studies some scriptures and everybody does some meditation. Study and meditation has to strengthen and confirm each other. It's like the two ways of understanding something: by inference and by direct perception. So, the teachers say that it is very important to gain personal verification of the Dharma through one's own experience. It means that you can put the teachings to the test in your own life. And the proof is found in the decreasing of suffering and the increasing of wholesome qualities. That is, there is a clear benefit one can derive from the teachings of the Buddha on every level. And that benefit, that blessing is what makes Buddhism a worthwhile endeavour.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
jeeprs said:
So I don't know why you're taking issue with what I have said here, as far as I am concerned it is totally orthodox.

Astus wrote:
Jnana has kindly answered the issue, so here I just add a little. The only reason I took up your post is because you stated that the mind cannot be known. It is actually a part of the instructions that not finding anything doesn't mean that one is incapable of knowing, rather it is the fact of not finding that shows its emptiness. This kind of instruction is not only Dzogchen and Mahamudra but also found in Madhyamaka and the sutras (Dogen also has a chapter in the Shobogenzo on it (at least on the term "unfindable", usually translated to English as "unobtainable", like in the Heart Sutra): Shin fukatoku 心不可得).

From Thrangu Rinopche's "A Guide to Mahamudra Meditation" (p. 33; http://s151421314.onlinehome.us/nbp/docs/PDF/7.%20Guide%20to%20Mahamudra.pdf ):

"Not finding anything, you initially think that you have somehow failed. Either you misunderstood how to look, or you just haven’t looked enough. But in fact this is not true. The reason you didn’t find anything is that the nature of your mind is utter insubstantiality, which is why, according to the Buddha, it is empty. To thoroughly comprehend this emptiness, we need to experience this directly in meditation."

Also, in chapter 7 of Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary on the 9th Karmapa's Ocean of Definitive Meaning the fact of not finding anything is discussed.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zhihua Yao: The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition - discusses self-awareness (svasamvedana) from the early schools up to yogacara.
Paul Williams: The Reflexive Nature of Awareness - looks into Shantarakshita's and Mipham's arguments

Also, Brunnhölzl's "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" contains good sources and explanations about the different ways self-awarenss is used.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
jeeprs said:
I agree with the statements in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad about http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-04.html. Briefly this is that you cannot know the knower of knowing, you cannot see the seer of seeing. The hand cannot grasp itself nor the eye see itself.

Astus wrote:
Unless you are putting this argument forward as a skilful means to ease the frantic search, stating that the mind cannot be known is contrary to both Zen and Dzogchen. There is a form of self-awareness that is denied in Buddhism, but there is another kind that is affirmed.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
Astus wrote:
To show that the problem of mind being the body and the body producing the mind has been known before, here are some stanzas from the Tattvasangraha, ch. 22 (tr. Ganganatha Jha). Of course, the reasoning might seem strange, because on one hand it is Indian, and on the other because it was written in the 8th century.

Some arguments of the Lokayatikas (i.e. materialists):
The body, the cognition, the sense-organs and the rest being destroyed every moment, they could not pertain to the other world ; and there is nothing else that is admitted (by you, Buddhists). Hence consciousness must be regarded as produced from, or manifested by, certain material substances, just like fermented acids, liquors and such things.

The names 'body', 'sense-organ' and so on are applied to particular combinations of earth and other material substances; there is no other reality than these.

...

From this it follows that the right view is that consciousness proceeds from the body itself which is equipped with the five life-breaths prana, apana and the rest; as has been declared by Kambalashvatara.

To assert that consciousness resides in the foetus, etc. Is sheer audacity; nothing can be cognised at that stage, as the sense-organs are not there ; and consciousness can have no form other than the cognition of things ; it is for this same reason that there is no consciousness in the state of swoon, nor can consciousness exist there in the form of a latent potency ; because no potencies can exist without a substratum; and as there is no soul that could be that substratum of consciousness, the body is the only substratum possible fob it. So that at the end, when the body has ceased to exist, wherein could the consciousness subsist ?
Some refutations from the Buddhist point of view:
The idea of the body being the cause (of cognition) has been already discarded, on the ground of its involving the possibility of all cognitions appearing simultaneously, on account of there being no other (contributory) causes. As a matter of fact, it is found that cognition in the form of remembrance, affection and so forth (which are cognitions) actually proceeds from pleasurable experiences and pleasant reminiscences of the same [which also are cognitions] ; and this cannot be denied. Then again, it is also seen that deterioration and improvement in one's later cognitions are brought about by deterioration and improvement in the practice of the learning and arts. It is also seen that when the functioning of the mind is defective, there is no apprehension of other things. On account of all these facts, the idea of cognition proceeding from cognition cannot be objected to.

...

If the cognition is of the same nature as the body, then why is not the consciousness (cognition) of love, hatred, etc. Not perceived by others as clearly as the body is ? In fact, cognition is cognised by the cogniser himself alone, while the body is cognised by himself as well as by others. Things that are so cognised are always distinct, e.G. Colic pain and the dramatic actor.

This reason is not admissible against the doctrine that * cognition (consciousness) alone exists ' ; as (under that view) what is cognised (by the cognition) is the appearance of itself ; as in the case of the man with defective vision. Further, cognition is always found to be destroyed immediately after appearance ; if then, the body with the cognition is of the same nature as the cognition, why is it not regarded as momentary ?

...

There is no audacity in asserting that there is consciousness in the foetus ; even though the sense-organs have not appeared in it, why cannot cognition be there in fact the assertion that does involve audacity is that all cognition proceeds from sense-organs and objects; because the contrary is found to be the case during dreams. In reality, cognition is apprehended also in a form which is distinct from that of the object, as is found in the case of swoon. From this it is clear that consciousness can be there in the foetus.

Consciousness is not present in the foetus merely in the form of a potency ; the view held is that consciousnesses are present there in their actual form. Whence do you derive the idea that there is no consciousness during sleep and swoon and such other conditions ? If it be argued that " the idea is obtained from the absence of consciousness ", then, the question is how has this absence been cognised ? In case your idea proceeds thus " we do not cognise any consciousness at the time ", then that itself proves the presence of consciousness at the time. It might be argued that " if consciousness is present during the said states, then why is there no remembrance of it on awakening, etc. ? " this fact (of non-remembrance) is not effective (in refuting our view) j the absence of remembrance is due to the absence of vividness and other conditions (in the consciousness) as in the case of the consciousness of the newborn infant.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
Astus wrote:
You are trying to fit a meditation instruction into a scientific idea. If you put aside your previous concepts about human biology and follow the steps as given, it works just fine. On the other hand, if you first want to engage in an intellectual investigation of the nature of mind, that's also possible, but not through Dzogchen teachings. Supposing that you want to stay in the Tibetan Buddhist structure, you should start with studying a lamrim text as an introduction and then go for learning pramana (epistemology). You may also just visit any qualified lama and debate about the matter.

For example, Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha deals with the problem of mind and matter to some extent. One of his reasoning is that unless direct correlation can be shown between physical and mental phenomena it cannot be established that mind is based on matter. Since the scientific research of the brain has not established that, there is no actual proof for the brain being the same as the mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Not knowing the location of the mind means that if you search in your personal experience for something that is your mind you don't find such a thing. This is first hand experience.

The scientific theories about how the brain functions and what is its relation to the mind is irrelevant here. Still, if you want to go into that area in the proper way, you should look at what is called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem in Western philosophy. No final answers are promised.

You should also know that the mind-body problem doesn't actually exist in Buddhism because it is resolved from the beginning by the Buddha teaching the five aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Astus wrote:
sinweiy,

On one hand, neither kalpa nor the modifying "numbers" are fixed. Here is a very nice summary with a chart at the end: http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/462/vbs462p042.pdf. On the other hand, both the sutras and the commentaries state that Amita's lifespan is not limited by any temporal measurement. He is there as long as there are sentient beings to save, this is the essence of the 13th vow. While there are different interpretations of Sukhavati and Amitabha Buddha, several Pure Land teachers - including the Jodo and Jodoshin schools - view his life as literally unbound and infinite. Xing Guang in "The Concept of the Buddha" (p 168) explains briefly how this idea of infinity (of life and light) is very much based on Buddhist teachings (from Mahasamghika in this case) and not other sources as some thought (from Zoroastrian mainly). Ven. Xuanhua connects http://www.cttbusa.org/amitabhacommentary/amitabha13.htm the infinite lifespan to the permanent quality of nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Mahamudra experiences
Content:
Astus wrote:
An interesting question, to give the practical differences. As for all the theoretical things, there is already a thread: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=6459.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
Jnana said:
There are likely a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that many of them have received significant education and training in these matters.

Astus wrote:
I think probably because they have the living lamrim system, unlike East Asian Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Shingon and Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Jikan said:
Does anyone have evidence of an intact transmission of esoteric Buddhism strictly within China's borders?

Astus wrote:
Depends on how you define "esoteric Buddhism". If as an independent school, it's probably never existed. If as certain practices, there are quite a few that are part of the yearly and even daily ceremonies in Buddhist monasteries.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Precious Human Birth
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'd like to add that, although less likely, gods can also attain different levels of enlightenment as shown in both the Nikayas and Mahayana sutras.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Apratishtita Nirvana
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I theorise it, non-abiding nirvana is based on nirvana with residue with the difference in emphasising that such residue (i.e. the aggregates) are empty so there is no need to get rid of them, and that's why the Mahayana criticism of the "sravaka nirvana" as nihilism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Mind and appearances
Content:
Astus wrote:
The point I wanted to make there is that as long as we try to understand Buddhism from a materialist-objectivist perspective (as used in science and taught in schools) there is little chance of a comprehensive knowledge. The source of information in Buddhism is meditative investigation and experiences. It is not unlike other religious and spiritual traditions in this sense. You will never see supernormal phenomena with the fleshly eyes. The divine eye is needed for all the "special effects" to appear. Practically that means one has to develop one's meditation and have faith in the teachings about other realms. Then it is possible to see gods, spirits and even buddhas.

Also, even one's everyday experience is defined by the mind that perceives it. It is common knowledge that different people experience the seemingly same event in different ways. We have a lot in common as humans, especially when we speak the same language and live in the same culture. But there's still enough difference among individuals to make understanding each other a difficult task. Our differences lies in our attachments, in what we like and what we dislike. Attachments are the habitual energy, the karma. Thus karma creates our daily experiences and it is what defines every birth too.

If we look at what we are, we can immediately see that thoughts and emotions are not the same as "thoughts out there" that we perceive by the five bodily sense-faculties. Mind is immaterial. It's impossible to confirm the immateriality of the mind by objective investigation, looking out there for a mind. In our subjective experience it is obvious. So, this is the first important step in understanding Buddhism. If we believe that mind is simply matter then the Dharma makes no sense. Once we can change our perspective it becomes quite easy to understand.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
Jnana said:
I think if we look at the sūtras and śāstras it's quite clear that they place significant emphasis on relying on the instructions of a learned and wise spiritual friend.

Astus wrote:
It should also be noted that the definition of such a good friend lies in that he is a learnt and experienced person who happily shares the Dharma. Like an older monastic (upadhyaya), or any sangha member who fits the criteria. The point is, being a teacher is defined by apparent achievements and not on recognition by a lineage or tradition. This is somewhat contrary to the prevalent notion in the West about teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
sinweiy said:
measureless, limitless Asankhyeya kalpas are actually number units of Buddhism.
1 Asankhyeya = 1^59

so we see, Asankhyeya, measureless, limitless is only the first three! "cannot be said, cannot be said" is last.

Astus wrote:
"even after a thousand million kalpas they still would not reach its limit"

If there were actual numbers that could be given in measurable time as you just did, it wouldn't take long at all to count it. By the way, what gives you these numbers, what is your source? Even in the Abhidharmakosha there is no actual number given for a kalpa that could be reduced to human years.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jodoshinshu.

From http://www.amidanet.com/kgss-f.htm:

If, when I attain Buddhahood, my life-span should be limited, even to the extent of a hundred thousand kotis of nayutas of kalpas, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment.
(The 13th Vow - the Vow of Immeasurable Life)

The life of the Buddha of Infinite Life is so long that it is impossible for anyone to calculate it. To give an illustration, let us suppose that all the innumerable sentient beings in the worlds of the ten quarters were reborn in human form and that every one became a shravaka or pratyekabuddha. Even if they assembled in one place, concentrated their thoughts, and exercised the power of their wisdom to the utmost to reckon the length of the Buddha's life, even after a thousand million kalpas they still would not reach its limit.
(Fulfillment of the 13th Vows - the Larger Sutra)

Since Amida attained Buddhahood, ten kalpas have passed;
His life-span is indeed beyond measure.
(T'an-luan's Hymns in Praise of Amida Buddha)

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/134106836/The-48th-Vows-of-Amida-Buddha: ( https://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.com/2012/04/short-explanation-of-13th-vow-infinite.html )

This vow simply means that his transcendent manifestation(Sambhogakaya body or Dharmakaya as compassionate means) will last forever for the benefit of all beings.
...
Amida Buddha as an Enlightened Person with his transcendent body, will last eternally as the 13th Vow promises. Even “a hundred thousand kotis of nayutas of kalpas” is still limited timewhen measuring the life span of Amida, so thissymbolical number is mentioned again to suggest the infinite andimpossible to calculate life of this Buddha’s body.

Jodoshu.

From Honen's Commentary on the Three Sutras of Pure Land Buddhism (Promise of Amida Buddha, p. 77):

Moreover, in order to provide eternal deliverance for sentient beings through the essential vow, Amida Buddha vowed that his lifespan will be immeasurable. This is the thirteenth vow. To summarize, while the vow of immeasurable light was designed to reach all sentient beings throughout space; the vow of infinite life was designed to benefit all sentient beings throughout time.

Chinese Pure Land.

From http://www.ymba.org/books/mind-seal-buddhas/explanation-text/main-portion/description-wonders-amitabha:

infinite life extends through time and reaches through past, present, and future ... Because sentient beings and Buddhas are inherently equal, those who invoke the name of Amitabha will be no different from him either in their light or in their life span. ... Given the truth of infinite life, the people in the Land of Ultimate Bliss are in the position that they are certain of attaining complete enlightenment in a single lifetime, and will not be reborn in different forms.
...
The life span of Amitabha Buddha is infinite, and here when the sutra just speaks of ten eons, this is just a provisional way of teaching. In fact Amitabha's time has been endless, and he has urged, is urging, and will urge all the sentient beings of the past, present, and future to quickly seek birth in the Pure Land, share in the infinite life of the Buddhas, and accomplish this all in one lifetime.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
tobes said:
The obvious objection might be something like this: if true wisdom requires advanced meditative insight, doesn't that insight naturally have more epistemic truth and authority than someone who stays true to their own understanding, but lacks that insight? In that case, might sticking with ones own understanding be nothing more than sticking with ones own lack of insight?

Astus wrote:
How can you verify another's insight? By their teachings and conversing with them ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html ). The teaching should be matched with the canonical texts ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-37 ) and should bear the eight qualities ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html; also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html ). That is, the only thing one can rely on is our understanding of the Dharma.

The above is of course what an intellectual person can agree with, something that is in harmony with the "Kantian injunction". In fact, however, people simply rely on faith based on temporary emotional moods most of the times. This results in statements about what they felt in the presence of the teacher, how they have a special connection, how the teacher inspires them, etc. Another thing that is likely thought of as a reliable source is reputation and hearsay. If they are told that such and such a teacher is magnificent, authentic, real, enlightened, then naturally that's how one starts to view that teacher.

While there is the idea that Buddhism is rational and not at all like other religions, there are many methods Buddhism has to emotionally convince people about its usefulness and superiority. The very claim that Buddhism is rational is such a tool to attract followers.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 20th, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: True Pure Land and Parinirvana
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea of "parinirvana" is generally not upheld by any Mahayana school but only as a skilful means, since buddhas remain helping sentient beings till the end of samsara. This is true for both the Jodoshu and Jodoshinshu as far as I know. Also note that one of the names of Amida is Infinite Life, i.e. he doesn't just "nirvana away" any time soon.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 20th, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Is Zazen described in Sutras?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's a list of early meditation sutras that existed in China: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13357


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 19th, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Is the attainment of Buddhahood the end of subjectivity?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Based on how Shakyamuni appears in the scriptures, he was not only aware of his life after his birth but also all the previous lives he lived. Apparently he did not cease to be a person.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 19th, 2013 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
tobes said:
I took Thurman's point to be: not that one needs to explicitly adopt a Kantian epistemology to get Madhyamika, but rather, that before Kant 'the west' per se would not be able to understand the middle way.

I think he's quite right.

Astus wrote:
Nagarjuna could be interpreted quite well in the context of Plato and Aristotle. Madhyamaka is a good criticism of both abhidharma and the idealist-substantialist philosophies.

Madhyamaka might be popular among Western philosophers because it is viewed as logic and linguistics, a methodology instead of an actual statement, a counter-metaphysics. It another thing about Buddhism that many like to think of the Buddha as someone who labelled metaphysical questions meaningless/unanswerable, so it leaves our precious presumptions about the world intact.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 19th, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
tobes said:
I think it was Thurman who made the argument that without Kant, westerners would not be able to 'get' Madhyamika - and I agree.

There are of course enormous tensions particularly in the Varjayana, between the Kantian injunction to saphere aude with the injunction to follow whatever the guru says. Does one go with ones own understanding or does one forsake it on faith that the guru knows more?

Astus wrote:
Or perhaps it is because of using Kant and other Western philosophers to interpret teachings like Madhyamaka that people - at least those who are somewhat philosophically educated - misunderstand Nagarjuna.

Yes, that tension is one of the big issues I'm trying to look into here.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 19th, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jeeprs,

Your arguments against positivism are fine, however, it came after Enlightenment, as a possible consequence, but definitely not the only one. The majority of the Enlightenment thinkers were at least believers in God and some devout Christians. And just as you wrote about finding a unity in religions, some of them, like Leibniz and Voltaire, imagined a unified and universal religion. So, just to be clear, Enlightenment ideas are generally not materialists.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 19th, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
How do the ideas of Enlightenment affect our attitude toward Buddhism?

While there is no clear definition of what those ideas are, I use Kant's short essay as a convenient reference here. The idea of freedom from sacred/traditional dogma, the superiority of reason, the individual as a capable thinker - these are among the outstanding novelties of the Enlightened view. The world we now live in reflects in many ways the manifestation of those ideas, like universal education, freedom of speech and religion and the general use of scientific methods. Buddhism in the West appeared as a rational philosophy - even its status as a religion is debated - and something that is in harmony with modern democratic, humanistic and scientific values.

The religious, magical and ritual elements of Buddhism are usually neglected by Westerners, instead Buddhism is taught as a personal path that emphasises inner reflection, peace, rational investigation and meditation.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes in the section on iddhipada (in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#part2-d ),

Because of their association with supranormal powers, the bases of power have generally been slighted in Western writings on Buddhism. If we count the five strengths as identical with the five faculties, the bases of power are the only set in the Wings to Awakening that has not yet been the subject of a book in the English language. The situation in Asia, however, is very different. There, the bases of power have been extrapolated from their specific context and are frequently cited as guides to success in general.

If you look through the topics on this forum it is hard to find any thread where the magical powers are discussed, especially not as actual attainments of the ordinary practitioners. Even the values of different actions in terms of merit and demerit are rarely talked about, not to mention the possible retribution in future lives. It may be that many accept the possibility of supernormal powers and other worlds, these things are not considered the core aspects of Buddhism. At the same time, especially Mahayana and Vajrayana texts, are full of extraordinary and wondrous events where buddhas appear in the sky and simple laymen conjure visions of other worlds.

Are we prone to submission to authority or to independent thinking?

Although it is a common enough response to "ask a teacher" (i.e. neither you nor me are good enough to even guess), the majority of Western Buddhist communities are independent from any Asian institution, however, it is actually normal in Buddhism that traditionally lacks a central hierarchy. Western Buddhist teachers who lack "correct transmission" are often disregarded as incompetent or even as charlatans. Besides the issue of authorisation, there is also the idea of a gap between "scholars" (pandita) and "practitioners" (yogin). Since Buddhism is understood as an inner path, an experiential enterprise, there is little use of books and studies on such a path. If people want enlightenment they shouldn't just go to the library (or a website) and study, but rather they should visit an enlightened teacher and do lot of meditation practice. This attitude defines what kind of Buddhism is popular in the West. People go to a Dharma centre to meditate and not to be instructed about the finer points of the sutras and shastras. They rather spend $600 for a five-day retreat with a well known guru than to buy the four-volume translation of the Abhisamayalamkara with commentaries for $345.

From an Enlightenment perspective, everybody should be able to study the Buddha's teachings and arrive at correct conclusions. The tendency is, however, more Romantic, where reason has almost no role, and one should follow ancient traditions.

How much freedom is there for a Buddhist practitioner in the matters of Dharma?

Can we accept that an ordinary human being can understand the Dharma? And can he do that on his own? What if his interpretation doesn't agree with another's? If the Sakyapa view disagrees with the Gelugpa, that's all right, since they are both respected traditions. If Mr Jones disagrees with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, well, who is this Mr Jones? Because the emphasis is on the person, the teachings are valued by the reputation of the teacher instead of the actual content presented. Although we can say that everybody is free to believe whatever they like, without the proper pedigree they are not taken seriously. Teachers are assessed not by what they teach but by who they are, in fact, you can't even measure a teacher since you are not a master yourself.

Is Buddhism already Enlightened or does it need to be reformed?

Since it is already accepted that Buddhism is in harmony with the modern ideas of rationality there is no need to question that. Buddhism is as good as it is. That is, as we have transformed it to our expectations. No magic, no philosophy, but only the inner realisation taught by proper masters. Because the thought that it is Enlightened is taken for granted, we are free to be Romantics. Thus, there is the illusion of freedom of thought, of individuality and science-friendliness, and with that the opposite is happily embraced.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 17th, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Title: Buddhism and Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance.
...
I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment--man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage--primarily in religious matters...  Above all, nonage in religion is not only the most harmful but the most dishonorable."
( http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html )

Questions:

How do the ideas of Enlightenment affect our attitude toward Buddhism?

Are we prone to submission to authority or to independent thinking?

How much freedom is there for a Buddhist practitioner in the matters of Dharma?

Is Buddhism already Enlightened or does it need to be reformed?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 17th, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Is Buddhist "Sunya" the same as Hindu "Nirguna" ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness (sunyata) in Buddhism means that things don't have a self-nature (svabhava). Emptiness is not a thing or being, it is the fact that things themselves are dependently arisen without a substance. So, it is not like Nirguna Brahman and/or the Tao at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 17th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Question on a line from a Tibetan passage regarding Tant
Content:
Konchog1 said:
I don't understand his metaphor...

Astus wrote:
Sexual embrace is as close to the ultimate truth as talking about sex  to actually doing it.

The same passage in Guenther's translation:

"For the delights of kissing the deluded crave
Declaring it to be the ultimately real--
Like a man who leaves his house and standing at the door
Asks a woman for reports of sensual delights."

In the Dohakosha he writes:

"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?"
(Dreaming the Great Brahmin, p. 166)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 17th, 2013 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Question on a line from a Tibetan passage regarding Tant
Content:
Astus wrote:
This topic is somewhat related to the passage in question (repentance and emptiness): http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=12740.

Regarding the consort statement - sorry for bringing Mahamudra here -, Tilopa's poem says that in case one fails to follow the Mahamudra instructions, one can do the other anuttarayoga practices of breath and karmamudra. In http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm:

"If the mind is dull and you are unable to practice these instructions,
Retaining essential breath and expelling the sap of awareness,
Practising fixed gazes - methods of focussing the mind,
Discipline yourself until the state of total awareness abides.

When serving a karmamudra, the pure awareness
of bliss and emptiness will arise:
Composed in a blessed union of insight and means,
Slowly send down, retain and draw back up the bodhichitta,
And conducting it to the source, saturate the entire body.
But only if lust and attachment are absent will that awareness arise."

On the other hand there is http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/saraha.htm:

"Obsessed with the joys of sexual embrace
The fool believes he knows ultimate truth;
He is like someone who stands at his door
And, flirting, talks about sex."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 16th, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Contemporary Soto criticism of Yogacara (and Taoism)
Content:
Astus wrote:
Beatzen,

Dogen is an heir to Song Buddhism (there's little need to specify as "Caodong Chan" as it's not much different from Buddhism in general) and Japanese Tendai. But both are quite far from the Indian sources. There are a couple of Dogen studies you can look into, if you are interested.

Steven Heine: Did Dogen Go to China?: What He Wrote and When He Wrote It
Steven Heine (ed): Dogen: Textual and Historical Studies
Taigen Dan Leighton: Visions of Awakening Space and Time: Dogen and the Lotus Sutra

other related studies:
William M. Bodiford: Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan
Jacqueline I. Stone: Original enlightenment and the transformation of medieval Japanese Buddhism
Robert E. Morrell: Early Kamakura Buddhism: A Minority Report

About the early times of Chan, these two works by John R. McRae are very good:

Seeing through Zen: encounter, transformation, and genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism
The Northern School and the Formation of Early Chʻan Buddhism

If you want a better understanding of Chan and its connection to Chinese (and Indian) Buddhism you may look into these books:

Song era:
Peter N. Gregory, Daniel A. Getz, Jr.: Buddhism in the Sung
Morten Schlütter: How Zen Became Zen: The Dispute Over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China

Early times:
Robert H Sharf: Coming to Terms With Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise
Peter N. Gregory: Sudden and Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought
Peter Gregory: Traditions of meditation in Chinese Buddhism
Robert E. Buswell: Paths to liberation: the Mārga and its transformations in Buddhist thought
Robert M. Gimello, Peter Nielsen Gregory: Studies in Chʻan and Hua-yen

On language you might like this:
Youru Wang: Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism: The Other Way of Speaking


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 16th, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Soul split into multiple mosquitoes?
Content:
undefineable said:
Buddhist texts already accept the possibility of the simultaneous experience of multiple first-person perspectives in the case of higher-level Bodhisattvas, though I can't see why this would happen to beings with just a basic level of awareness {It sounds as if it would be more confusing than painful in this case!}

Astus wrote:
There is no mention of simultaneous subjective perspective anywhere as far as I know. The multiplication of body is a basic magical power that practically any being can achieve, however, there is no discussion of the actual details of how that looks like from the personal point of view. Rather, those are all illusory bodies, tricks, not actual beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 16th, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Contemporary Soto criticism of Yogacara (and Taoism)
Content:
Astus wrote:
If you want to trace back Zen to India, I recommend the following route:

Song Dynasty Chan (this is where everything got a final a mature form with all the lineages, transmission texts, rhetoric, etc.) - Yongming Yanshou, who fought against the arising (and winning) Chan style and taught a combined approach, influenced Korean and Tangut Chan, eventually became prominent in China as a Pure Land patriarch and so in Chinese Buddhism in general - the Hongzhou school of Mazu and the Heze school of Zongmi (the sources of mature Song Chan and Yongming's Chan, respectively) - Shenxiu and Shenhui, the so called northern-southern debate

That is for Chan history in big steps. You can find that for Zongmi and Yongming the Huayan teachings had great influence, while for Shenxiu and the Northern School it was more Tiantai influenced in terms of meditation. Shenhui made the radical turn, basically reducing Shenxiu's teachings to sudden enlightenment and focusing on the Diamond Sutra and prajnaparamita teachings in general. However, Shenxiu was first in teaching a new style of Buddhism, which could be called a transformation of Tiantai sudden teachings. So, to eventually get back to India, one should look into the Tiantai school that was influenced by Sanlun, Kumarajiva and early Yogacara texts (but in its tathagatagarbha/dharmadhatu-oriented interpretation); so generally early Chinese Buddhism and prominent texts like Awakening Mahayana Faith.

If you want to skip all of the above then just look at the sutras usually referred to in Chan texts. On the one hand there are "apocryphal" works that already have a "Chan flavour" (e.g. Surangama, Vajrasamadhi, Perfect Enlightenment), and there are Indian works (e.g. Lankavatara, Mahaparinirvana, Vajracchedika, Vimalakirti). Instead of trying to identify some "philosophical school" as the source of Chan, the sutras themselves can serve as a good basis to find the roots. In the pre-Song Chan works there are often some level of apologetics preset where they try to prove how Chan is truly the essence of Mahayana. And there are people like Yongming Yanshou who try to prove to Chan people that the sutras already contain all the teachings they think are "beyond words and letters".


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 16th, 2013 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Essential Zen Practice
Content:
Beatzen said:
My argument is based on the fact that Dogen really believed that all there really "is" is this moment. period.
That implies, as he said, that causes and their coresponding effects emerge simultaneously in one moment. which is the only time they can emerge (right now).
He is saying that causes and effects are imediate and co-emergent. It is actually quite logical. I mention this because it has bearing on why Dogen was so praxis-oriented. He utilizes these kind of thoughts to bolster arguments he makes about "making emptiness" and comitting to a truly soterologically-effective practice.

Astus wrote:
The problem is that if we restrict causality to a single moment there is nothing that can happen in a moment. Happening, movement, change, they all need time, need a sequence. A moment is fixed, it is still and motionless, nothing can emerge or disappear. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_paradox; also chapter 2 of MMK) Thus not only past and future are empty but the present moment too. Both time and causality are illusions, mental fabrications. However, if we are talking about cause and effect it must needs include time, simply because that's what we all experience in this everyday world.

Beatzen said:
But your citation doesn't make me think that there is any doctrinal, set-in-stone, or else logically-sound emphasis on sudden enlightenment. Like I said, "gradually sudden."

Astus wrote:
Zazen is enlightenment itself. What could be more sudden than that? It is directly becoming/being buddha. Some quotes from Dogen and Keizan:

Bendowa:

"When we sit in zazen, through the virtue of the Buddha mudra we release all things, and move beyond limited views of delusion and enlightenment, sages and usual people, and can receive and enjoy great wisdom.
...
Even bodhi and nirvana are nothing but this nature of Awareness. All things and appearances without exception are totally and only this single Awareness and are embraced without disarray. The various Dharma Gates are all equally this single Awareness. This is how the nature of mind is understood in the Buddha Dharma."

Zazen-yojinki:

"Vow to cut off all delusions and realize enlightenment. Just sit without doing anything. This is the essence of the practice of zazen.
...
Although we speak of realization, this realization does not hold to itself as being "realization". This is practice of the supreme samadhi which is the knowing of unborn, unobstructed, and spontaneously arising awareness. It is the door of luminosity which opens out onto the realization of the Buddha, born through the practice of the great ease. This goes beyond the patterns of holy and profane, goes beyond confusion and wisdom. This is the realization of unsurpassed enlightenment as our own nature."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
Content:
Astus wrote:
In India there was only Madhyamaka and Yogacara as distinct branches of Mahayana thought, although we could say that they were not too separate. Tathagatagarbha didn't have its own philosophical system there. In East Asian Buddhism there are two other "philosophical" schools, Tiantai and Huayan, and they are strongly connected to the Tathagaragarbha teachings.

Although it is questionable what can be categorised as a "philosophical school". All Buddhist traditions have their own teachings, and all teachings are connected to practices. There is no such thing as a purely theoretical Buddhism, nor is there a purely pragmatic path.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Purification of Karmic Obscurations Thread
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea is summed up in the sayings like "klesa is bodhi" (煩惱即菩提) and "samsara is nirvana" (生死即涅槃). It is to see the emptiness of all, in this cased applied to afflictive emotions. Among the four (in Vajrayana five) knowledges/wisdoms it is the knowledge of equality (samatā-jñāna).

In the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sutra the great repentance is taught:

"Because you have now read and recited the Great-vehicle sutras, the buddhas in all directions will preach the law of repentance. The bodhisattva practice is not to cut off  binding and driving nor to abide in the ocean of driving. In meditating on one's mind, there is no mind one can seize, except the mind that comes from one's perverted thought. The mind presenting such a form rises from one's false imagination like the wind in the sky, which has no foothold. Such a form of the law neither appears nor disappears. What is sin? What is blessedness? As one's own mind is void of itself, sin and blessedness have no existence. In like manner all the laws are neither fixed nor going toward destruction. If one repents like this, meditating on his mind, there is no mind he can seize. The law also does not dwell in the law. All the laws are emancipation, the truth of extinction, and quiescence. Such an aspect is called the great repentance, the greatly adorned repentance, the repentance of the non-sin aspect, and the destruction of discrimination. He who practices this repentance has the purity of  body and mind not fixed in the law [but free] as flowing water. Through each reflection, he will be able to see the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue and the buddhas in all directions.'"
(Threefold Lotus Sutra, p. 223)

There is also the teaching (or more like lecture) Vimalakirti gave to Upali in the 3rd chapter of the Vimalakirti Sutra regarding breaking the precepts and afflictions. From another sutra about instructing bodhisattvas:

"One should speak like this – do not give up your passion, do not fight your aversion, do not clear away your bewilderment, do not liberate yourself from your body, practise the bad things, do not hold back  your views , do not be conscious of the bonds [to the worldly things], grasp for the parts of the personality, amass the spheres of sense-perception, move about among the fields of sense-perception, do not leave the stage of fools, frequent the bad, give up the good, do not think of the Buddha, do not reflect on religious teachings, do not give offerings to the congregation of monks, do not take the training upon yourself, do not seek the peacefulness of existence, do not cross over the river [of existence]. This kind of instructions one should teach and give to the bodhisattva in the beginning of his development. 
Why? Because this state of the moments of existence and nothing else is their [true] state . 
Foolish people explain things in accordance with moments of existence of arising and moments of existence of disappearance. But this sphere of all moments of existence distinguishes itself by being beyond thought-constructions, and understanding the essential character of all these moments of existence in this way is awakening."
( http://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=fulltext&vid=30&view=fulltext )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: Soul split into multiple mosquitoes?
Content:
andyn said:
I just wish I could see if this whole idea was a fraud made up by someone then I can get this monkey of my back, but...

Astus wrote:
Hasn't it been clarified for you already in this thread that multiplication of mind-stream is impossible?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 4:34 PM
Title: Re: Bankei on Zen Practice
Content:
Fu Ri Shin said:
Benkei's realization of the Unborn was sudden and preceded by great exertion. Is he telling us that his own breakthrough was unnecessarily dramatic? Or is the near-death awakening story about him dubious in its historicity?

Astus wrote:
Bankei went through his troubles as he found no teacher who could actually help him, or you can say he had some negative karma he had to get rid of first. As for the veracity of the story, I'm unaware of any studies that investigated it, although I think it doesn't sound like anything unusual or unbelievable.

"All of you are extremely fortunate. When I was a young man, it was different. I couldn't find a good teacher, and being headstrong, I devoted myself from an early age to exceptionally difficult training, experiencing suffering others couldn't imagine. I expended an awful lot of useless effort. The experience of that needless ordeal is deeply engrained in me. It's something I can never forget.
That's why I come here like this day after day, urging you to profit from my own painful example, so you can attain the Dharma easily, while you're seated comfortably on the tatami mats, without all that unnecessary work. You should consider yourselves extremely fortunate, because you won't find a teaching like this anywhere else.
Just as I was foolish and bullheaded when I was young, sure enough, if I tell you about my experiences, some of the young fellows among you will take it into their heads that they can't achieve the Dharma unless they exert themselves as I did. And that would be my fault. But I do want to tell you about them, so let's make this point perfectly clear to the young men. You can attain the Dharma without putting your-self through the arduous struggle I did. I want you to remember that carefully as you listen to what I say."
(The Unborn, p. 48, tr. Waddell)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 14th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Questions and Comments
Content:
Astus wrote:
Just a side note: Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka is quite unique and differs from the others, usually (a lot) more complicated than madhyamaka is otherwise. As Jnana already did, I also recommend The Center of the Sunlit Sky as a thorough introduction. Other works by Brunnhölzl are also great.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 14th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: The ego and self-esteem
Content:
Astus wrote:
What you let go on the path are the bad things, unwholesome emotions. They are like: greed, anger, ignorance, arrogance, doubt (about the Dharma), envy, deceit, harmfulness, etc. Here is one list from the Theravada tradition: http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/mtinmon3.htm. Another list under klesa (Mental Disturbances) and upaklesa (Secondary Mental Disturbances) that is used in Mahayana: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/outlines/100dharmas-big5.htm.

At the same time, you cultivate all the good qualities: http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3113.html. Similar list under kusala (Advantageous) in the 100 dharmas collection.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 14th, 2013 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Essential Zen Practice
Content:
Beatzen said:
That's kind of incredible to me... Can you give us a quote [preferably Nagarjuna] elucidating how effective and formal causality are "mistaken?" Also, what is the name of that Sutra chapter so that I can look into this?

Astus wrote:
Chapter 20 of the Middle treatise (MMK) analyses sequential and simultaneous causality. Similar reasoning occurs in other chapters, like chapter 11, 14, 16. It is also taught by later masters, like Candrakirti, reasoning like this:

"If it is something existent, what need is there for its production? But if it does not exist, what could be done to it?
If it is both [existent and non-existent], what can be done? And if neither, what can be done?" ( http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments )

Lankavatara Sutra, 2.31 (tr. Suzuki):
"there is no gradual nor simultaneous rising of existence. Why? Because, Mahamati, if there is a simultaneous rising of existence, there would be no distinction between cause and effect, and there would be nothing to characterise a cause as such. If a gradual rising is admitted, there is no substance that holds together individual signs, which makes gradual rising impossible."

However, none of the above is the denial of everyday common reality where we see causes generating results. I have mentioned this because you said that Dogen believed in simultaneous cause and result, which doesn't actually match normal reality where the cause must always precede the result.

Beatzen said:
"general view" is a strange way to put whatever you're talking about to me, as I have never actually seen a Dogen citation emphasizing "sudden enlightenment" above "gradual" or even a 'special emphasis' on Zazen over other forms of practice. If someone could cite those sources for me, i would greatly appreciate it.

Astus wrote:
http://www.wwzc.org/sites/default/files/Bendowa-book.pdf:

"The Buddhas and Thus Come Ones have all simply Transmitted an unfabricated wonderous means of realizing complete and utter Awakening, the Teaching of Wonder. In Transmitting it from a Buddha to a Buddha, its standard is self-enjoyment harmonization. To enter this through sitting up straight in zazen is the main gate."

"The person of zazen unmistakably drops through body and mind, cutting through the myriad distorted views of the past, and realizes essential Buddha Dharma. You thus raise up the work of the Buddhas at numberless practice places of the Buddhas and Thus Come Ones everywhere, causing everyone to have the opportunity of ongoing Awakening, and vigorously uplift the ongoing Buddha Dharma."

"Each moment of zazen is equally wholeness of practice, equally wholeness of realization for this and for that."

"Why do you urge only zazen?
Answer: Because it is the main gate to the Buddha Dharma - this is my answer to them."

"You just sit idle and do nothing. How can this be a means to Awakening?
...
Just understand that if sincere students and realized Masters correctly Transmit and receive the subtle Dharma of the Seven Buddhas, its essence manifests, and can be experienced. Those who teach only the words of the Discourses know nothing of this. So stop this doubt and delusion and follow a true Teacher and, through zazen, actualize the self- enjoyment harmonization of the Buddhas."

Beatzen said:
It is not true in Zen that non-grasping is "the only practice." That is a gross oversimplification and comes nowhere near explaining the practices of Shikantaza, or Kinhin.
Neither is it true that simple "non-grasping" constitutes "enlightenment" from a zen perspective.

Astus wrote:
"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.
...
Good friends, 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."
(Platform Sutra, ch. 2; tr. McRae)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Questions and Comments
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rachmiel,

1. It is possible to come up with different answers based on Buddhism. For the majority of Mahayana teachings, the answer is that there is nothing real outside, it is only the product of karma and ignorance, the conceptualisation of mind.

2. All teachings are only skilful means, they are not reified. So, when it is said that everything is mind made, the reason behind the teaching is to liberate beings from suffering. If it is used for something else, that is simply misunderstanding Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: short batchelor Critique
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Every major religion's teachings involve tensions, paradoxes, and apparent contradictions. They demand coexistence alongside our contemporary culture of individualism, liberal values, secularism, and scientific scepticism.[/b] We might find notions of no-self and rebirth or Dependent Origination irreconciliable with our personal worldview. But we will have to decide whether grappling with these doctrinal tensions is worth the authentic spiritual fulfilment offered by the progenitor of these tensions, the Triple Gem.

Astus wrote:
For me this argument sounds very weak. It is basically a "take it or leave it" statement that advocates pure faith while at the same time claims that it is only natural for Buddhism to be irrational and contradictory. Certainly there is space for religious sentiments in Buddhism where you can get "spiritual fulfilment" and all sorts of uplifting experiences. It is something common in religions. At the same time, one of the strong points of Buddhism is in its intellectual sanity, its logical system. Of course, trying to fit it into a scientific or any other world view is the wrong way to grasp the snake of Dharma. Buddhism is about eliminating suffering and not anything else. Also, the only big step required to establish rebirth is to apply the internal-subjective way of direct investigation of our own minds instead of the external-objective based proliferation of theories to confirm the mind-stream as non-material.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Questions and Comments
Content:
rachmiel said:
Which is Buddhism closer to?

Astus wrote:
Neither of that. Buddhism is not about giving clever answers to difficult ontological-epistemological questions. Madhyamaka is about understanding that suffering comes from the reification of concepts, from the ignorance of imagining things to have self-nature. To see that all appearances are without essence, to see them insubstantial and fabricated, is the liberating wisdom of emptiness, i.e. the end of conceptual proliferation.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Title: Re: Essential Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Both sequential and simultaneous cause and effect are mistaken, this has been shown by Nagarjuna and even the Lankavatara Sutra has a small chapter for it. As I see it, Dogen follows the general view of Zen as sudden enlightenment, just as in the Platform Sutra and others, with the exception of some special emphasis on seated meditation. Practice is enlightenment because the only practice is not grasping phenomena, what is the same as enlightenment. This is the "essential zen practice" stated in the OP.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and tantra
Content:
lama tsewang said:
originally there was just one practice of just sitting. later they developed koans, the original zen practice is done by the soto zen lineage.

Astus wrote:
Says so the Soto Zen people. But it is true that kanna zen (practice with koans) is a 12th century development. Although, so is the idea of emphasising zazen. However, this is not the forum for this topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 11th, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Artificial Intelligence & Sentience
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jesse,

I don't equate the mind with the brain. If I believed that intelligence is simply a biochemical process I might as well agree with the idea that AI is possible. However, according to my understanding, mind is basically immaterial, therefore it's not possible to build an intelligent machine. Being a mechanic device is in itself contrary to intelligence, to sentience. And that's where I see the impossibility of achieving AI. Even if they could build a robot that has a human body - quite necessary to replicate ordinary experience - and add to that a set of very complex processors, it would still have to follow strict deterministic rules. Intelligence, on the other hand, has no rules, it is not bound by any thought, feeling or sensory impression.

Unknown said:
If you forget "code", and simply say that by the process of observation and reflection, it can learn, change it's views, and adapt to new situations, does it sound so different from any other living being?

Astus wrote:
To be able to observe and reflect you require consciousness, the very ability of knowing. But that knowing, that consciousness of the mind is open, not fixed. So it is not possible to build from fixed structures an unbound awareness. That is, mind is not simply a causality bound process, while a machine necessarily is.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 11th, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Artificial Intelligence & Sentience
Content:
Jesse said:
In some ways yes, some ways no. AI works using learning algorithms, Their decisions are based on what they learn, and integrate. They are not based on hard-coded "mandates". These of course are loosely based on our own brains, and minds.

For example:
https://io9.com/5820624/computer-teaches-itself-english-so-that-it-can-play-civilization

Astus wrote:
Being able to adapt to some level is not the same as being free from codes. The difference I'm talking about is like this: a computer may be able to handle an artificial language (regular grammar, no phrases and other difficulties), and operates within the boundaries of that language. Human mind, however, is capable of learning several languages and reflecting on language, moving beyond grammar and words. That is, intelligence is more than just codes and rules.

The linked example is too brief a description (e.g. I doubt it could actually read the manual as you or I can) and I think we would need to be able to comprehend all the details to take it into account.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 11th, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Artificial Intelligence & Sentience
Content:
Jesse said:
In an AI, this would be accomplished by giving it access to it's own source code.

Astus wrote:
Wouldn't it still be a code to overwrite another code? That is, all possible actions are predetermined.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jeeprs,

I think it depends on which Zen community you go to. Not all of them are "samurai style", and the keisaku isn't used everywhere either. As for being easy or difficult, I can say that Zen is the easiest of them all. That's because there's nothing you need to do, you can "practise" anywhere and everywhere. At the same time, one can freely use any formal practice one prefers, from sitting meditation to prostration. It is very open and simple.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
jeeprs said:
But in our cick-driven pleasure-seeking instantly distractable social milieu, what it will usually be taken to mean is, Zen is easy, I don't have to do anything.

Astus wrote:
I can only agree with you. For instance, if one cares to read on after the quoted section Linji talks about his efforts to study and practice, and urges the audience not to waste their time. Still, since the topic is about non-meditation, I think it deserves to be answered. I personally prefer Zen to be truly a sudden path. But, as Hunagbo says, "Because one lacks the capacity for sudden Awakening, one must study the Tao of Dhyana for 3, 5, or 10 years." It is really up to the individual what path is fitting.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
jeeprs said:
Right. So why bother getting up before dawn to meditate or taking the trouble to study sutras?  Surely just better to open the hand of thought and just go about your daily routine. After all there's nothing special to attain and no 'special state'.

Astus wrote:
Hungry, eat.
Sleepy, close your eyes.
Fools laugh at me but the wise understand.

Followers of the Way, don‘t seek in words and letters. When mind is stirred, you will be exhausted. Even inhaling chilly air won‘t help you. It‘s better for you to realize with one thought that the world of causal relations is birthless, and go beyond the bodhisattva who surpasses the Three Vehicles.
(The Sayings of Zen Master Linji Yixuan, Shimano version, p. 47)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: Artificial Intelligence & Sentience
Content:
Hickersonia said:
This sparked an odd vision in my mind of a bunch of supercomputers talking to eachother, arguing "...a biochemical processor, that is not possible..."

I agree that artificial intelligence is unlikely, but I won't use words like "impossible."

Astus wrote:
I say it's not possible because that would mean the mind is actually made of insentient elements and bound to a fixed causality. Intelligence requires the ability of reflection, to be able to review, modify and adapt. In short, this is called self-awareness. The mind is not bound to any fixed idea or system, that's why it is basically free, open, empty. If you program something, it means there is a fixed system and that sets its boundaries, it is not open.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
Modernly,  Rupert Sheldrake has theorized about laws of the universe as just habits rather than causal interactions. This is a philosophical doorway into the nonexistence of agents, objects and actions. Nagarjuna's whole spiels are all about This then that... It's cool to go from there into Dzogchen.

Jnana said:
It is. And Sheldrake is an interesting fellow.

Astus wrote:
Habits instead of causality is Hume's idea, further investigated by Kant ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/ ), then on influenced Husserl's phenomenology and through Hegel the process philosophy of Whitehead. As for Sheldrake, I'm not familiar with his thoughts, just wanted to add how in Western philosophy the idea of causality can come close to a Buddhist understanding while at the same time it is - being philosophy - a lot more complex.

Sorry for being


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Artificial Intelligence & Sentience
Content:
Astus wrote:
Vinodh,

As I see it, true AI is not possible. Programming is based on mathematical principles, however, intelligence is not bound by such rules of logic.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
Holybla said:
Zen and nonmeditation are not meditation. Meditation is using the mind to concentrate on something. Your nature is beyond the mind.

Astus wrote:
Or rather there is nothing beyond mind. The true nature is no nature.

"There is a koan that asks, "What is your original face before your parents were born?" One might naturally assume that there is some special thing called "original face," but that is not the right approach. When we open the hand of thought, letting go, the original self is already there. It's not some special mystical state. Don't seek it somewhere else. When we open the hand of thought, what is there, in that moment, is our original face."
(Kosho Uchiyama: Opening the Hand of Thought, p. 154)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
oushi said:
What do you think Zen is, according to this Zen text?

Astus wrote:
A sudden path to realising the nature of mind. That is, not a gradual method that goes through stages, but simply the insight into emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
oushi said:
What do you think about this?

Astus wrote:
It is a quote from a Zen text.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: Dzog Chen and Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Personally I find ChNN's work (or perhaps better to say Nubchen's) misleading regarding Zen, partially because it is outdated. As Jinzang said, the primary method of Zen is practically no different from those of Dzogchen and Mahamudra (and we could add Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka and even Yogacara). The difference lies in almost all the other things. Guruyoga is one good example, and of course all the other ideas that are based on Tantra. On the other hand, Zen has koan practice, something that is unique to that school.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
oushi said:
And what is the difference between those two? There may be many methods and techniques, but isn't meditation an inexpressible experience of the true nature?

Astus wrote:
The gradual path of meditation (going through preliminaries, shamatha and vipashyana) culminates in the direct realisation of the true nature. So what counts as meditation is not actually that realisation but the path toward it.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Title: Re: Practicing Zen without a teacher
Content:
Astus wrote:
Whether you need a teacher or not is up to you. Most people need some level of instruction before they can get started on the path. As for what and where you learn from is again a question you have to answer. I think that unless you have serious obstacles you should visit one (or more) Zen (or at least Buddhist) communities to familiarise with the teachings and practices.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Title: Re: Zen, dhyana, and non-meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
If my memories are correct, the term "Zen school" appeared rather late, around the 11th century, when a group of people wanted to strengthen their position in the Chinese Buddhist scene against the "others", namely the "teaching schools". And by Zen they never meant actual meditation, but rather the inexpressible experience of the true nature (while the "teachings" are the expressed side).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Title: Re: Bankei on Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jeeprs,

As I see it, Bankei returned to the central point of Zen. He didn't say people shouldn't do usual Buddhist practices, in fact, in some cases he advises people to recite sutras and do zazen. As for those who only need confirmation to their delusions, they are obviously misunderstanding it, since the very meaning of "unborn" is not giving rise to ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Bankei on Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Of course, the practice is staying with the unborn, which is simply like Uchiyama's opening the hand of thought without the sitting posture. That is, Bankei doesn't give (nor exclude) anything besides the unborn.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Soto views on rebirth?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Matylda,

People use the teaching of momentary rebirth as an exchange for life to life rebirth about what they are at least agnostic. You can read Brad Warner's two articles where he is explicit about his position.

"When people questioned Nishijima about this during talks, he always explained that these references were meant metaphorically, not literally."

"Rebirth is a myth that some Buddhists believe in. It might be loosely based on fact. But it might just be a fantasy."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Title: Re: Pureland study group anyone?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'd like to add Ouyi's http://www.ymba.org/books/mind-seal-buddhas among the commentaries. It is a good representative of inclusive interpretation.

Just for the first section of the part describing the buddha-land itself (in Ouyi's commentary this is still the introductory part).

Unknown said:
At that time Buddha said to the Elder Shariputra: "West of here, past a hundred billion Buddha-lands, there exists a world called "Ultimate Bliss". In this land there exists a Buddha called Amitabha, who is expounding the Dharma right now.

The Pure Land method takes in all people, whether they are of low, medium, or high capacity. It is beyond all relativities, in perfect  fusion. It is inconceivable: it is perfectly all-encompassing, and goes completely beyond all other Buddhist methods. It is very profound and hard to believe in. Therefore it is specially announced to those of great wisdom: without the highest level of wisdom, you cannot arrive directly at the stage where you have no doubts about the Pure Land teaching.

"West" signifies the place where the Pure Land appears, which is west of here.  A "Buddha-land" is a whole great galaxy of worlds that are all taught by one Buddha. In terms of our world, there is a central polar mountain, and four continents to the east, west, south, and north of it, illuminated by the same sun and moon, surrounded by a circular range of iron mountains: this is one world. A thousand of these makes a small world system, a thousand small world-systems makes a medium world system, and a thousand medium world-systems makes a great galaxy of worlds. West of a hundred billion of such Buddha-lands is the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

Question: Why is the Land of Ultimate Bliss in the west?

Answer: This is not a good question. If the Land of Ultimate Bliss were in the east, you would be asking why it is in the east. Isn't this just playing with words? What's more, if you look at the Land of Ultimate Bliss from the point of view of the hundred billion Buddha-lands, it is in the east. What is worth creating doubts about?

"There exists a world called Ultimate Bliss." This introduces us to the name of Amitabha's environment, to his domain.  In the temporal dimension, its time is reckoned in terms of past, present, and future. In the spatial dimension, its boundaries are reckoned in terms of the ten directions [the four cardinal directions, the four intermediate directions, the nadir and the zenith].

The Sanskrit name for the Land of Ultimate Bliss is "Sukhavati".  It is also called the Land of Peaceful Nurturing, the Land of Peace and Bliss, the Land of Pure Equanimity, and so on. The basic meaning is that it is utterly peaceful and secure, and forever removed from all forms of pain and suffering. This is explained at length below.

There are four kinds of Pure Land, and each category is in turn subdivided in terms of purity or defilement [see glossary, "Four Pure Lands"].

Buddhas have three bodies, which are discussed in terms of singularity and multiplicity [see glossary: "Three Bodies of the Buddhas"].

When the sutra says "there exists a world called Ultimate Bliss" and "there exists a Buddha called Amitabha," it is saying that both that world and that Buddha do actually exist. There are four meanings here.

It indicates that there is a real Pure Land, and makes us happy to seek it.
It gives us truthful instructions, to make us concentrate on the Pure Land.
It states that the Pure Land is not a figment of the imagination or a mirage, that it is not a provisional manifestation or a roundabout teaching not to be taken literally, that it is not an empty falsity, that it is not a land reached via the Theravada vehicle.[13]
It demonstrates perfectly that the Pure Land is part of our true nature, to enable us to have a profound realization of it and penetrate into the truth of Real Mark (the Mind).

"Buddha expounding the Dharma" on this occasion shows that both the Pure Land and Amitabha exist -- this is not a case of "the past is already gone, and the future has not yet taken shape." We must make a vow to be born in the Pure Land, and to personally hear Amitabha's teaching, so  that  we  may  quickly  achieve  true enlightenment.

The fact that the Pure Land and Amitabha Buddha are here in the present encourages us to have faith. The fact that Amitabha's world is called the Land of Ultimate Bliss encourages us to vow to be born there.  The fact that the Buddha in the Pure Land is called Amitabha encourages us to engage in the wondrous practice of invoking his name.

The words of the sutra are concise, but the meaning is very profound.

This  concludes  my  commentary  on  the introductory portion of the sutra.

[ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY: According to the contemporary Vietnamese Master To Lien: "If we are discussing the different manifestations of the universe, the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha is indeed ten billion Buddha lands away. However, if we are speaking of the Pure Land of the Mind, then the ten billion Buddha lands are not outside the narrow confines of our own minds. If we recite the Buddha's name singlemindedly, the Pure Land can be found in every recitation -- the Pure Land is here and now."]


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Sokushinbutsu - What do you guys think of this?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is no limit to what people can do once they have grasped on an idea. Misunderstanding the Dharma is very easy. Understanding correctly the Dharma is also very easy. What you choose is what matters, that is your karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Cryonic Preservation and Rebirth
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm no expert in medicine or biology, however, as I've heard, frozen dead bodies can never be reanimated because by freezing the cells they are practically destroyed (just as freezing water can break the bottle).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Title: Bankei on Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Kosho Uchiyama wrote about "sesshin without toys" and how zazen is not playing with anything.

"It seems to me that we spend all our lives playing with toys. ... Doing zazen means to actualize the reality of life. zazen is the self which is only the self of the universe, without any playing with toys. Zazen is like the time just before our death when all the toys have been taken away. Yet, even then we look around for something to play with, if only for an instant."
(Opening the Hand of Thought, p. 62)

"Among all the human activities in the world, there is nothing in which we can live out our own life without amusing ourselves with toys. Only sitting zazen is free from self-amusement with toys. This is the point where zazen is wondrous."
(The Wholehearted Way, p. 127)

What I find missing is to say that zazen itself is a toy, a device, that they keep playing with, to the exclusion of other tools (recitation, repentance, etc.). While reducing Zen to zazen seems minimalist, there is one more step. See what Bankei says:

"If the Buddha-mind is clearly realized, that's enough. You need do nothing else — no practice, no precepts, no zazen or koan study. Nothing like that. You'll be free from care, everything will be taken care of, just by being as you are."
(The Unborn, p. 116, tr. Waddell)

"The only way any of you can become unborn and realize the Buddha-mind is to confirm what I'm telling you in your own mind. I won't tell you that you have to practice such and such, that you have to uphold certain rules or precepts or read certain sutras or other Zen writings, or that you have to do zazen. I'm not going to try to give you the Buddha-mind either — you already have it. If you listen carefully to me, and grasp the Buddha-mind that's already yours, then you become a genuine living Buddha. Wherever you are standing, that place is the Unborn. Whatever you want to do, you can do it. If you want to recite sutras or do zazen, observe precepts, recite the Nembutsu or the Daimoku, you should do it.59 If you're a farmer or a tradesman and you want to work your farm or your business, then go ahead, do it; whatever it is, that will be your personal samadhi. My part in this is simply to tell you about it and to try to get you to confirm the Buddha-minds you were all given when you were born."
(The Unborn, p. 120, tr. Waddell)

"To exert yourselves in religious practice, trying to produce enlightenment by doing religious practices and zazen, is all wrong too. There's no difference between the mind of all the buddhas and the Buddha Mind of each one of you. But by wanting to realize enlightenment, you create a duality between the one who realizes enlightenment and what it is that's being realized. When you cherish even the smallest desire to realize enlightenment, right away you leave behind the realm of the Unborn and go against the Buddha Mind. This Buddha Mind you have from your parents innately is one alone—not two, not three!"
(Bankei Zen, p. 76, tr. Haskel)

"Now, you may be doing zazen and reading the sutras, but abide in the Buddha Mind that you have from your parents innately, just as it is, and realize the Unborn. If you practice zazen or read the sutras with some deliberate aim in mind, hoping to accumulate merit, or whatever, you'll only be changing the Buddha Mind for merit, or changing it for zazen and sutras! That's how it is, so all you've got to do is acknowledge with profound faith and realization that, without your producing a single thought or resorting to any cleverness or shrewdness, everything is individually recognized and distinguished of itself. And all because the marvelously illuminating Buddha Mind is unborn and smoothly manages each and every thing."
(Bankei Zen, p. 85, tr. Haskel)

"All of you should realize the vital, functioning, living Buddha Mind! For several hundred years now, [people in] both China and Japan have misunderstood the Zen teaching, trying to attain enlightenment by doing zazen or trying to find 'the one who sees and hears,' all of which is a great mistake. Zazen is just another name for original mind, and means to sit in tranquility with a tranquil mind. When you do sitting meditation, you're simply sitting, just as you are; when you do walking meditation, you're walking, just as you are."
(Bankei Zen, p. 96, tr. Haskel)

"Mind accords with all circumstances, yet doesn't arise or cease
The sages of old praised this, calling it zazen
Blind people wear out their cushions waiting for enlightenment
Just like trying to make a mirror by polishing a brick"
(Bankei Zen, p. 123, tr. Haskel)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Content:
Astus wrote:
Getting started with the text is probably the most difficult part, but if you can understand the way it gives its reasons in the first two chapters then I think you will have little problem with the rest. I recommend you just start reading and if you have questions start a topic for it in the Mahayana or Academic section.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Are Satipatthana, Shamatha and Vipashyana interrelated?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Satipatthana (smrtyupasthana) is a complete method in itself that includes both calming (samatha) and insight (vipassana/vipasyana). Although it is not necessary to master several stages of absorption (jhana/dhyana), some level of mental peace is always required by every meditation system in Buddhism that I know of (including modern Burmese vipassana). The method of calming doesn't lead to liberation because it is simply a temporary tranquillity one gains and without insight there is no turning away from grasping at phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Soto views on rebirth?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"In Zen we talk about rebirth in this lifetime. ... Karma is a word that expresses the process of how the way you live in this moment affects what happens in the next moment, or the next year, or the next decade."
http://www.dharma-rain.org/?p=about_faq#rebirth

http://suicidegirlsblog.com/blog/the-myth-of-rebirth/
http://hardcorezen.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/literal-rebirth.html

"Heaven is a human supposition and Hell is also a human supposition. But when our autonomic nervous system is balanced, it is just Heaven, and when our autonomic nervous system is not balanced, it is just Hell."
http://www.dogensangha.org/questions.html


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Rinzai views on rebirth?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"the majority of Zen practitioners and teachers in the West are agnostic on this subject, leaning one way or the other. I, for instance, am agnostic on the subject, but lean toward nonbelief…"
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2008/09/some-questions-answered-regarding-soto-zen-in-north-america.html

"It is not taught any place in the sutras that we will have a next life; these six realms are not something that we will experience when we are reborn in another life. They could apply to different parts of society; they could apply to different aspects of our current life; they could apply to our various states of mind."
http://onedropzen.org/uploads/freshlyfallensnow.pdf

"Whenever I've had the opportunity, I've asked the Zen masters I've encountered about rebirth. My first teacher, Sochu Roshi, said, "It's a nice story." I asked another teacher, Eido Roshi, about the same thing and he thought for a moment then he said, "It's better to say, 'Could be' than to say, 'No.'" When I asked Maezumi Roshi about it, he never answered me except with thunderous silence. Nonetheless, I overheard heard him telling others, "Yes, definitely, there's rebirth!" Rather than talk about it, they wanted me to find out for myself."
(Gerry Shishin Wick: The Book of Equanimity, p. 29)

"Another fundamental principle of Buddhism is the doctrine of the continuity of life and death. There is no sharp dividing line between this life and the next. ... Death does not disturb the continuity of life; for karma and rebirth are continuous, the one implying and being inseparable from the other. As sin and suffering bring death, so does death bring rebirth."
(Nyogen Senzaki: Like a Dream, Like a Fantasy p. 89)

"The Chan and Zen views of Rebirth are not the same. These schools make no assumptions or hold beliefs as to what happens after one dies. Because of this, rebirth is seen as being born into each moment, dying and being reborn into the next moment. This isn't something to be taken on faith, but to understood through your own practice."
http://www.zen-georgia.org/ZenFaq.html#11 (a Rinzai Zen group)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Title: Re: Jewel Ornament - Question about Dharmakaya
Content:
Konchog1 said:
So if the Dharmakaya is of the mind then what is meant by "Dharmakaya is all-pervading emptiness"?

Astus wrote:
As Cone said, all things are mind, and mind is empty. Don't forget that emptiness is not something in and of itself but the quality, the nature of phenomena. Dharmakaya is used in the context of the trikaya teaching (the term dharmakaya has other uses too, but they are not important here). So in order to say that the nature of the mind of every sentient being is the same as the mind of buddhas they use the term dharmakaya. Emptiness is a universal quality, so we can say that dharmakaya is the same as the emptiness of everything else, because the mind being empty is no different from other things being empty.

In the JOL (p. 289) all-pervading emptiness is explained under the 4th category: "Oneness. It is indivisible because the Dharmadhatu and primordial wisdom cannot be differentiated." That is, non-conceptuality includes not making differences between this and that, not grasping the extremes of sameness and difference, therefore it is all-pervading.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Jewel Ornament - Question about Dharmakaya
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya is a word for the emptiness of the mind. For the emptiness of everything in general the word is dharmadhatu. While both mean emptiness, the difference is regarding to the emptiness of what.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: How did Dogen present karma & rebirth?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dogen talks directly and indirectly about karma and rebirth. Some examples:

In the Shobogenzo (tr. Nishijima-Cross, Numata edition):

vol 1
ch9, Keisei-sanshiki (p. 118), on the power of confession cleansing past karma
ch10, Shoaku-makusa, the entire chapter about retribution and precepts
ch12, Kesa-kudoku (p. 159), on the power of kesa/kashaya cleansing karma
ch14, Sansuigyo (p. 221), different beings see in different ways
vol 4
ch90, Shizen-biku (p. 272), criticises Kongzi and Laozi for their ignorance of past lives
ch84, Sanji-no-go, the whole chapter is about the karma in three times

In the Eihei Koroku (tr. Leighton-Okumura):

4.275 (p264); 5.383 (p340) fruit of past lives
5.386 (p344) "If people who study Buddha Dharma have no genuine faith or true mindfulness, they will certainly dispense with and ignore [the law of] causality."
6.437 (p392) denying karma is wrong view, zazen with wrong view is useless
7.485 (p430); 7.517 (p460) 3 kinds of karma
7.504 (p450) "Tathagatas never go beyond clarifying cause and effect"
7.510 (p454) "Students of the way cannot dismiss cause and effect. If you discard cause and effect, you will ultimately deviate from practice-realization."
7.524 (p466) rebirth of relatives by the merit of one's leaving home


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 3rd, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Good practices for a householder
Content:
Astus wrote:
ShaunC,

There are different levels of Buddhists, and everybody takes and uses as much of the Dharma as they want. The first thing is to take refuge in the Three Jewels, then on you are a Buddhist, no matter what. If you can keep, or aspire to keep, some precepts and vows, that's already part of the practice. And when I say practice, it means practising the Dharma in one's life, and not in a narrow sense of sitting on a cushion.

From a fundamental perspective, here is a collection of teachings addressed to lay people: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#lay. This discourse is highly recommended: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

And if we are talking about Mahayana, the six paramitas are easily applicable to lay life. It includes methods to relate to others (giving, discipline), central qualities to nurture (patience, effort), and inner methods (meditation, wisdom). If that sounds too much, it can be reduced to a single practice: compassion. Devotion is another important part of Buddhism, and you can see its tangible presence in any Buddhist country. One part of that devotion is "mindfulness of Buddha", that is practised in the form of recitation and prostration. The central method of the Pure Land school is being mindful of Amitabha Buddha, and it is the most popular among both the laity and the monastics. But if you feel more connected to another buddha or bodhisattva, that's fine too.

If you are more drawn to Vajrayana, it has a lot to offer too. As an example: http://www.dzogchenmeditation.com/about-us/what-is-dzogchen/13-teachings/16-the-pointing-out-instruction-to-the-old-lady.html

I think that even for a busy lay person like you there are many many options. You just have to choose.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Shitloads of stuff.  You cannot even begin to imagine how much more there is.

Astus wrote:
That's good, because it seems the entire path is well described in several versions, plus all the open teachings and empowerments, consequently none of them are secret or restricted.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism in Singapore?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's a virtual tour of a monastery, as an example of traditional Chinese Buddhist structure, in Singapore: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/temple/temple.html


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: Good practices for a householder
Content:
greentara said:
'again, you don't need to sit and do anything. You just need to sit. Give up the obsessive human need to do something all the time and just be still. Let Silence teach you as you sit.

Astus wrote:
And why sit? What if you don't have time to just sit around? There are things to take care of, people to talk to, meals to cook, work to do, etc. How do you manage that?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
yegyal said:
Again, I think it's a mistake to assume that you would even know about the things that are actually kept secret.

Astus wrote:
In that case, everything that can be learnt about Vajrayana without sitting at the feet of a guru are not secret at all. I wonder what could be left to teach to the actual disciples in secret...


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Konchog1 said:
If you try to do [Completion Stage practices] without proper preparation-which means a thorough grounding in the graduated path-and without a stable deity practice, you will lose your mind. I mean that quite literally. You really need to know what you are doing; otherwise all sorts of things can start to happen. If the energies move into a wrong area, moving them back again is incredibly difficult. There are many mediators who have gone completely crazy because that have not followed the practices correctly or tried to take shortcuts.
-Tantra by Geshe Tashi Tsering pg. 117

Astus wrote:
All types of Mahamudra and Dzogchen are completion stage practices, still they are taught very openly and I doubt there were many who have lost their minds because of that. Or perhaps what was meant are specific wind related techniques? In that case, we're back to the subject discussed a few pages back.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Separate topic: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=12611


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Pero said:
Anyway, in the end, none of you seem to be able to give any good reason against secrecy.

Astus wrote:
Against? We could explore that area too, although so far it was about examining the reasons for the secrecy, as that is one of the things that makes Vajrayana different from all the other methods in Buddhism that are not secret at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Good practices for a householder
Content:
shaunc said:
Pureland. I got into it for similar reasons.

kirtu said:
This is one reason we need something like Obaku Zen.  DT Suzuki said something similar in the intro to his Pure Land book.

Astus wrote:
No need to rely on the very little information available in English on the Obaku school. Just look at the teachings of practically any teacher from Chinese or Vietnamese Mahayana. Pure Land and Chan practices easily go together.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Learning about Tendai
Content:
Jikan said:
To me this opens onto another question that I would like to discuss in another thread sometime:  I've been told but I haven't confirmed it that Tendai training contains within it a Zen transmission, but not the "northern" or "southern" transmissions that have become so well known as Soto and Rinzai:  the "Ox Head" school (Gozu) line.  I know next to nothing about this except for some comments made in passing by my teacher, and the little bits I've read in Dumoulin's book on Zen.

Astus wrote:
You can read a little about the Niutou/Gozu school here: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/henrik.htm.

The poem in another translation with some modern commentary: http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1307&Itemid=0


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Good practices for a householder
Content:
Astus wrote:
Originally the huatou method propagated by Dahui Zonggao was meant for lay people. Read the book Swampland Flowers, most of the letters in it from Dahui are sent to lay people. You may also study the teachings of Bankei Yotaku and Daehaeng Sunim, both of them taught very direct Zen and they had a large lay audience.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Luke said:
Did any of these "more significant masters" teach ideas from the Caodong tradition?

Astus wrote:
The mentioned Hongzhi Zhengjue is the most famous person. The "founders" of the Caodong lineage are also well known: Dongshan Liangjie and Caoshan Benji. Then there are Touzi Yiqing, Furong Daokai (Furong being the actual reviver of the Caodong school in the Song era and inventor of "silent illumination"), Zhenxie Qingliao and others of the Song era. But there's very little from any of them in English.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Jnana said:
Drinking alcohol would be one example. Sexual yogas would be another. The potential for negative consequences are far greater than if one maintains the lay precepts or the monastic discipline without engaging in such activities.

Astus wrote:
I see your point. Still, there are a few Mahayana sutras that give complete freedom to bodhisattvas in the name of emptiness and compassion, and there are Zen stories for instance that are as transgressive as those from Vajrayana. Although none of them constitutes a part of actual training.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Jnana said:
The potential risk of serious negative karmic consequences increases significantly when venturing outside of exoteric orthopraxy.

Astus wrote:
How so? Can you give some examples?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to me that Caodong as a distinct form of teaching in China has disappeared around the 13th century, if it ever really existed at all. As for anyone interested in Dogen's teachings, I have no information, maybe there are a few.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Jnana said:
Two reasons for maintaining secrecy in the Vajrayāna that are applicable across historical periods and cultures:

(1) because it is undertaken as a commitment on the part of the student, and
(2) because there are certain vajrayāna practices that can have negative karmic consequences if incorrectly engaged in.

Astus wrote:
Point one is actually saying that "it is secret because it is secret". Point two may be applied to non-vajrayana practices too.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
oldbob said:
Recognizing this, perhaps it is more responsible to explain, and put in context, all secret teaching and then expect common sense and peer pressure to control and limit harmful, or crazy making, behavior.

Astus wrote:
I can only agree with this. And just as in any Buddhist path, the majority wants to join a community and learn from teachers and experienced members. It is not easy to assume the correct meditation posture without some guidance, and that's even truer for the rest of the practices, although there are some very good meditation manuals too.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Luke said:
So in reality, in modern China and Taiwan, there is little difference between a Chan monk who is a Linji lineage holder and a Chan monk who is a Caodong lineage holder?  (Both Chan monks have probably studied mostly the same things.)  Is this correct?

Astus wrote:
There are just monks (and nuns, in fact, a lot more nuns than monks in Taiwan). Whether they say they belong to this or that lineage (that includes even Tiantai, Huayan or anything else) is usually not relevant, because it is often defined by what monastery they were ordained or live in. For instance, Ven. Xingyun of Fo Guang Shan is Linji lineage but there isn't anything Linji (or even Chan) specific in his teachings. And while Ven. Shengyan has created the Dharma Drum lineage (combination of Linji and Caodong), his teachings are a mixture of Tiantai, Humanistic Buddhism and a bit of Japanese Zen (but mostly his own system), while at the same time in the Western Chan Fellowship (followers of Ven. Shengyan) they teach a mixture of Soto Zen, huatou practice and some sort of therapeutic techniques (just to show how Western perception and presentation can be quite different even if there is a direct relationship). Korea is another good example here, since the majority of monks belong to a single church, the Jogye Order, that actually promotes Ganhwa Seon (i.e. Linji style Chan), but individual monasteries and teachers can transmit very different things (even rejecting Ganhwa practice).

The sort of "objectless meditation" is called mozhao (silent illumination, mokusho in Japanese), just as Ven. Shengyan uses it. Interestingly, it was originally a derogatory term used by Dahui. That is, mozhao used in the Caodong context. Otherwise it can have many other names, like no-thought, no-mind, prajnaparamita, one act samadhi, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 at 7:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzog Chen and Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
A related post: http://earlytibet.com/2011/11/22/tibetan-chan-v/


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Achieving Epistemic Certainty
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides the advice to look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pram%C4%81%E1%B9%87a#In_Tibetan_Buddhism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logic, the way to gain certainty about the Buddha's teaching is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_in_Buddhism. Wisdom includes the studying and understanding of the teachings, and then confirming them in meditation by direct experience. While epistemology and logic are subjects studied mainly in Tibetan Buddhism, wisdom is an essential part of the path to liberation in every school. Obtaining certainty in the Dharma is the first stage of enlightenment, so every practitioner has to work towards this in the beginning.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
yegyal,

You say nervous conditions. Is that a reference to actual bodily problems, or only to energetic issues? I mean, can you describe probable health related dangers in modern medical terms, or does it only exist in the old Indo-Tibetan view of the human body? I think this is a relevant question as far as the reason for secrecy goes, because if it can be shown that certain practices cause actual physical and/or mental damage to people, it'd require stricter control (similarly to psychotherapists and doctors).

After reading the http://meditatorswindimbalance.org/about-meditators-wind-imbalance-lung/ section on that site, I'd say such problems with trying too hard and doing the meditation wrong can occur with any type of practice. That is, Vajrayana doesn't require any special treatment in this case.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
yegyal said:
"Believing in things that aren't there"
Doesn't that describe most of the "things" people believe in?

As for health problems, the most widespread issue that Buddhist practitioners face are lung/wind problems, which covers a variety of nervous conditions.  I think is what they refer to in Japan as "Zen sickness," and it's pretty much caused by those that either push themselves or practice ina very forceful or tight way.  But this has much less to do with secrecy, than it does the need for the guidance of a teacher who can notice and help you correct these kinds of deviations.

Astus wrote:
I meant by things that are not there the misinterpretation of the teachings. Zen sickness is mistaking quiet and peace for enlightenment, or any other special experience one may have in meditation. It is like taking "bliss, clarity and non-thought" to be the nature of mind.

Can you specify "wind problems"?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Title: Re: In Search of a Teacher
Content:
Astus wrote:
Are you looking specifically for a Zen teacher or just any Buddhist teacher? For a start, you may check what Buddhist communities are available in your area.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are the four major Taiwanese Buddhist organisations' description of their aims and programmes:

http://www.fgs.org.tw/english/orgainzations/objectives/objectives.html
http://www.ctworld.org/english-96/html/a7Threefold-SANGHA.htm
http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=52
http://tw.tzuchi.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=281&Itemid=289&lang=en

Or you may look into the free e-books to see what topics they cover and how they present Buddhism:

http://blpusa.com/category/buddhism-in-every-step
http://chancenter.org/cmc/publications/free-literature/

An interesting fact is for instance that while Ven. Shengyan is called "Chan master" in English, he is "Dharma teacher" (fashi - common title of all monks) in Chinese. Another thing is that while Ven. Shengyan was known in Taiwan primarily as a scholarly monk, in the West his organisation is mostly about promoting a newer style of Chan.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Pero said:
Health problems. I'm not totally clear on the details as I haven't so far seen anything elaborating on it. As far as I remember my teacher just says one can become abnormal.

Astus wrote:
I've heard a few stories myself about people flipping out on meditation retreats, although there was no Tantra involved. Some Christians also believe that meditation makes you susceptible to demonic possession. And there are all sorts of mental and emotional problems one may face in meditation, although the worst I've seen was a few people crying or be frightened of some experiences. I'm not saying that one can't do harm with practices, but it sounds more like empty threats. As I see it, the worst thing that can happen when one is without an experienced guide is believing in things that are not there. Alas, without detailed and reliable information this is not a topic that can be explored.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Luke said:
Ah, so all Chan monks receive shikantaza instruction and can practice it whenever they wish?

Astus wrote:
Monks may receive a lot of instructions or almost nothing, depending on their ordination teacher and the community they live in. There is no such thing as a "Chan monk", there are only monks and nuns. Nowadays in Taiwan the major Buddhist churches have seminars for those who ordain and they study a curriculum. Same goes for Korea and Japan. But a hundred years ago you learnt what and from whoever you could. I don't know what is the situation in mainland China these days regarding monastic education.

Luke said:
Hmm, but didn't Rujing have his own "style" of Chan?  If his style wasn't unique then why is it given its own special name (Caodong)?

Astus wrote:
Caodong is simply a lineage, a virtual system of relationships among elite monastics (primarily abbots). Theoretically the Caodong school's teaching style involved the Five Ranks of Dongshan, and (as mentioned in Fayan's Guidelines for the Zen Schools) "knocking and calling out" (whatever that means), and the five positions of prince and minister (mentioned in the Blue Cliff Record, case 7), and if I recall correctly they also liked to use the Yijing to illustrate teachings. Dogen apparently didn't follow any of that. As for the practice of "shikantaza", on the one hand every Buddhist monk knows sitting meditation, on the other hand the expression itself "just sitting" was most likely created by Dogen himself.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Luke said:
For example, if a person never ate in public and only ate when he was in private with no one to observe him, only would eat using a silver spoon with a Buddha on the end of it, and if someone who was not part of his "eating with Buddha spoons group" asked him "Do you ever eat?", he would avoid answering the question, even though all people know about eating already; then the act of eating in such a ritualized way would take on a new intensity for him mentally.

Astus wrote:
Just a side note for eating privately: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kreetassan


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Two things should be clarified.

1.
In China association with any particular lineage is mostly irrelevant in terms of doctrine and practices. At certain times in Buddhist history such lineages meant association with certain groups of elite monastics, but those times were rather exceptional. Normally life in a monastery goes on just as it did before, following similar rituals and daily routine. Individual monks can specialise in the area of their choice and do the practices they prefer. And when there is an outstanding (usually old and experienced) monk, younger monks go and study from him.

2.
Dogen didn't actually transmit a specific style of Zen to Japan but rather what he saw as the common form of Buddhist practice. It is Zen just before the reforms of Dahui - i.e. kanhua chan, using Zen stories for meditation - spread everywhere. Shikantaza is not an exclusively Caodong/Soto method but ordinary sitting meditation in the Zen way.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Pero said:
True, but I think the danger of doing so is greater in Vajrayana. And for example, stuff like tsa lung without some instructions from someone experienced can lead to serious problems.

Astus wrote:
There are all sorts of physical and energy exercises people do without any problem. Sure, having a proper martial arts or yoga instructor decreases the chances of injury. And while it is uncommon that people learn any of them only from a book, it is not impossible (especially when one already has some experience in that area). Also, what kinds of serious problems do you mean here?

Pero said:
But there is a difference between the path and a practitioner on that path. I guess you could say that the former is not personal while the latter is.

Astus wrote:
The personal application of a path is unique regardless of the path followed. In this there is no difference between any teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: What does it mean to practice seriously?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Once Zen Master To An was visiting another temple.  He was not wearing his Zen Master clothes, but just the clothes of a wandering monk.  He began a conversation with one of the monks at the temple, who did not recognize him.  Soon the monk began to talk about his Master.  “Everyday he does one thousand prostrations.  He eats only one meal a day.  He hasn’t left the temple for thirty years.  He is always sitting Zen.  He is the greatest Zen Master in all of China.”
To An replied, “Well, well, he sounds like an extraordinary man.  I can’t do any of these things.  I can’t bow a thousand times a day; but my mind is never lazy.  I can’t eat only once a day; but I never desire food.  I can’t stay in a temple for more than a short time; but wherever I go I have no hindrance.  I can’t sit Zen for very long; but I never give rise to thinking.”
The monk said, “I don’t understand.”  “Then go ask your Master,” To An replied.  The monk bowed and went into the temple.
Soon the Zen Master of the temple came running out to To An and prostrated himself three times in front of him.  “You are a great Zen Master,” he said. “Please let me become your disciple.  I have been very attached to hard training.  But now that I have heard your words, my mind is clear.”
To An laughed and said, “No, I can’t be your teacher.  You are already a great Zen Master.  All you need to do is to keep the mind you had when you were bowing to me.  Already you are a free man.  Before, you were bowing, sitting and eating only for yourself.  Now it is for all people.”
At these words, the Zen Master began to weep with joy.  He bowed again to To An and said, simply, “Thank you.”

(Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, p. 112-113)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If the reason for secrecy were the personal nature of practice, it'd be true for every Buddhist (and non-Buddhist) teaching.

Pero said:
And who says it isn't?

Astus wrote:
However, Vajrayana as a teaching is not personal, it is very formalised and structural. Therefore, there is no reason for certain texts to be called hidden or secret that could harm an uninitiated person. One could misinterpret any Buddhist teaching. Also, since Tantra has been accepted as part of the orthodox monastic training, it rarely involves practices that are as extreme as it might have been once. Generally an empowerment doesn't involve actually swallowing "bodhicitta" and generating bliss by union, everything that was contrary to Buddhist ethics has been reinterpreted as only symbolic. Since tantras are included in both the Tibetan and Chinese canons, practically anyone has free access to them. So calling it secret does not mean that it is hidden or unknown. I'd say the names Secret Mantra, Secret School (Mi Zong 密宗), or Secret Teaching (Mikkyo 密教) is more like a style, an aesthetic value.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If the reason for secrecy were the personal nature of practice, it'd be true for every Buddhist (and non-Buddhist) teaching. If the reason were to keep it holy, the same would apply for all religion. Rather, as Davidson says, the idea of secrecy was and still is used primarily as an attractive element, to make it look special and people who are initiated feel they are the chosen ones. Secrecy is also used to explain why Tantra was unknown to other Buddhist schools, the same excuse used by Mahayana. Western esoteric teachings are also meant to be secret, however, it is obvious that practically anyone who wants to know about it can get all the information. Same applies for Vajrayana that is arguably the most widespread form of Buddhism in the West with perhaps the largest number of publications and other media coverage from documentary films to Hollywood movies. It is a lot easier to learn about the Six Yogas, one of the highest and most secret practices, than to find information on such common practices as (East Asian) Pure Land funerary rituals.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: What does it mean to practice seriously?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think it depends on intention. What is the goal of practice? Worldly benefits, future life benefits, personal liberation or liberating others.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 28th, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Title: Zen is No Secret
Content:
Astus wrote:
Bojo Jinul's seminal work, the Secrets on Cultivating the Mind (Susimkyeol), contains the essential teachings of Zen that everyone eager to liberate all beings should study carefully. It answers many questions that people who learn about Zen find difficult to answer. It shows the actual nature of mind and advises on how to go on from the initial enlightenment.

http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?board=Dharma_Talks&y_number=19
http://www.wonbuddhism.org/doc/4.buddhist.sutra%28english%29/6.2.Secrets.of.Cultivating.the.Mind.by.Dr.T.Cleary.pdf (PDF)

"Since all dharmas are like dreams or conjuring tricks, deluded thoughts are originally calm and the dusty sense-spheres are originally empty. At the point where all dharmas are empty, the numinous awareness is unobscured. That is, this mind of void and calm, numinous awareness is your original face. It is also the dharma-seal transmitted without a break by all the buddhas of the three time-periods, the successive generations of patriarchs and teachers, and the spiritual advisors of this world. If you awaken to this mind, then this is truly what is called not climbing the rungs of a ladder: you ascend straight to the stage of buddhahood and each step transcends the three realms of existence. Returning home, your doubts will be instantly resolved, and you will become the teacher of humans and divinities. Endowed with both compassion and wisdom and fully endowed with the twofold benefit, you will be worthy of receiving the offerings of humans and divinities. Each day you can use ten-thousand taels of gold. If you can do this, you will be a great man who will have indeed finished the tasks of this life."
(Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Vol. 2, p. 219)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 27th, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Historical reasons for secrecy in Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Ronald M. Davidson writes in Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement:

Buddhist hermeneutics in service of the siddha-related literature had to accomplish several arduous goals. First, under the rubric of secrecy, it had to explain why the new literature diametrically contradicted the fundamental Buddhist values of virtuous restraint, since restraint and discipline (vinaya, sila) were the starting points to Buddhist institutional life. Second, siddha hermeneutics needed to generate a systematic interpretation of difficult passages, especially those tying erotic behavior to the Buddha himself. Finally, the exegesis needed to be sufficiently flexible both to reassure the conservative monastic community, while continuing to incorporate new developments in Indian religious life.
(p. 239-240)

Most Buddhist Mahayanist and esoteric scriptures explicitly acknowledge the question of reception with the introductory chapters (nidana) affording scenarios in which different communities are assembled, followed by their haggling over the meaning of the Buddha’s message. The hermeneutics of reception, in fact, contributed to one of the great paradoxes of Indian esoteric Buddhism: the employment of secrecy for the purpose of propagating extensively the esoteric practices within multiple communities and subcultures. The esoteric method is arguably the most successful Indian Buddhist ritual system to market itself throughout both the traditional and modern worlds. Given the extraordinary spread and viability of the esoteric persuasion, it appears that one aspect of its popularity is exactly its claims to superiority by virtue of selectivity. Few themes fan the flames of desire like restricted access and an aura of incomparability. In their emphasis on secrecy, esoteric Buddhists shared systems of transmission with other institutions that required secrecy in the pursuit of hegemonic status: governments, trade societies, criminal conspiracies, and ritual specialists.
In recognition of these requirements, the rhetoric of esoterism directed that new material typically be introduced through the agency of a scriptural pronouncement that is presented as a challenge to the status quo. The language of the introductory chapters (nidana), introductory sections of threatening chapters,  and sections on coded language (sandhyabhasa) often represent their content as causing grave doubts, sometimes about their referents, sometimes about the nature of the Buddha’s message itself. Many of the literary techniques had  already been introduced in Mahayana sutras, especially the Saddharmapundarika, but were used now to justify decidedly different content.
(p. 245-246)

At home, esoteric Buddhism demonstrated tenacious success in India for more than five centuries at a time when the dynamics of the subcontinent were rapidly changing, and Buddhist institutions were in retreat in the Krsna River valley and elsewhere. It assisted the maintenance of the great monasteries and stemmed the Saiva tide sweeping up from the south. It sponsored the development of aesthetic and artistic forms in other countries such as Tibet, China, Japan, Nan-chao, and Burma—and formulated models of a hierarchical sacred community that survive to the present. It developed some of the most popular rituals ever employed in Buddhist centers and propagated them with a rhetoric of intimacy and secrecy. Indeed, the overwhelming success of the Secret Path has propelled it into a position where it has become perhaps the least secret of all the Buddhist meditative systems.
(p. 339)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Has anyone else left Vajrayana?
Content:
anjali said:
The most compatible with Zen teaching in the Tibetan tradition I've found is Mahamudra. There are some excellent manuals on Mahamudra meditation that can easily compliment a zen approach. Best wishes on simplifying your practice.

Astus wrote:
http://www.wwzc.org/book/ven-anzan-hoshin-roshi translated "The Practice of the Co-Emergent Mahamudra", and the late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crook_%28ethologist%29 led Mahamudra retreats. Since only a few meditation manuals have been translated so far to English from Chinese, Mahamudra is the closest in view one can find as a complement to Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Talking About Kensho
Content:
jeeprs said:
There are people who charge big money for seminars on it, and so on. So it does not hurt to be reticent about the subject. It is a very subtle thing. It is very easily exploited and misunderstood as I'm sure we would all agree.

Astus wrote:
But if you make it open and clear there's nothing left to misunderstand and exploit. Although even if it were part of the primary school's curriculum there would be a few people falling for charlatans.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: What a Zen Master is, and what a Zen Master isn't.
Content:
seeker242 said:
And how can this be done without having a hierarchy of people maintaining control over other people, telling them what to do? Who is going to be in charge of "the system"?

Astus wrote:
By recognising the qualities of others, their experience, knowledge, kindness and wisdom, there are people who one considers good friends from whom one can learn. Usually lay people learn from monastics, and in the monastery there is a seniority system. Buddhism doesn't work like the Catholic Church, there is no strict hierarchy, no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium. Whatever one teacher says is not compulsory for anyone else to accept it. The Zen tradition itself is diverse. And there is no need for any control over others. By "system" I mean the way people are taught about the Dharma. And either one accepts the idea that people are capable of comprehending and practising the teaching (one of the meanings of universal buddha-nature), or doesn't accept it.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Mulamadhyamakakarika and more
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are quite a few.

MMK:

https://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC (annotated translation)
https://books.google.com/books?id=FL4KAAAAYAAJ (selections from Candrakirti's commentary)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QpO5ykqRHJEC (Tsongkhapa's commentary)
https://books.google.com/books?id=54kV38QYrvoC (Jay Garfield's commentary)
https://books.google.com/books?id=0czByWU0US8C (Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's commentary)

Alamkara:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hOb6M6Uo948C (Mipham's commentary)

And there are lot of teachings in Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: Has anyone else left Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I know someone who originally studied Vajrayana and Dzogchen in particular, but then read a book from Ajahn Sumedho and thought that since it's the same as Dzogchen why take all the fuss that it involves so switched to Theravada.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Title: Re: Talking About Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I see it, kensho is personally verifying the truth of the Buddha's teaching that all phenomena are empty. Since this is a central teaching I don't see a reason why it couldn't be discussed.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
plwk said:
Funny Astus, that DDM chart didn't mentioned http://www.tallahasseechan.com/guogu_bio.html amongst the five lay Dharma heirs listed or was his 'inka' unconnected to being a 'Dharma heir'?

Astus wrote:
It lists only Western heirs.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 25th, 2013 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Maybe, but they have obviously not established any lasting community. In China the Linji school practically took over the Chan scene, just as in Korea and Vietnam. The Japanese who travelled to China and returned, or the Chinese who went to Japan during the 13th century belonged to the Linji school, Dogen seems to be an exception. It should be also noted that belonging to this or that lineage in China had little or no relevance to the everyday monastic life.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 24th, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Great Soto masters after Dogen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keizan is regarded as the second founder of Soto Zen. Menzan Zuiho (1683-1769) made Dogen and his writings the central source of doctrine in Soto, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gento_Sokuchu de-emphasised the use of koans in Soto.  In the modern era the most famous is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodo_Sawaki.

You may also look at this: http://terebess.hu/english/zenschool.html


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 24th, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Caodong lineage in China after Rujing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Caodong lineage in China survived via the Shaolin monastery, where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xueting_Fuyu established its lineage and it was the source of the 17th century revival of the Caodong line. Even today the Shaolin monastery belongs to the Caodong lineage. Ven. Shengyan also has the Caodong transmission, you can see his lineage chart http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/about-the-western-chan-fellowship/lineage-of-the-teachers/lineage-chart/.


