﻿Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 21st, 2017 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
In the Lotus Sutra traditions, the Perfect and Sudden path starts with being told of your Buddhanature - we don't wait to the final realization. This is idea appears throughout Zhiyi's writings, but is perhaps most directly explained in the Zhiyi's Mohozhikuan in the section on the Six Identities. The Six Identities is an outline of Buddhist path from ordinary being to Buddha.

Astus wrote:
The six identities system is a very good example of a gradual path.

Queequeg said:
The Buddha-mind/Buddhanature/tathagatagarbha is given from the start. You can argue against that, but I will not be joining you on that excursion.

Astus wrote:
I do not argue that at all.

Queequeg said:
Since what we are dealing with is reality, it follows that any dharma pursued to its end reveals the real nature of reality. Even if you start with an utterly unfounded dharma, like the horns of a rabbit. Reality is unavoidable.

Astus wrote:
What's the point of a path if it is unavoidable? Just as described in the six identities, one needs first of all to hear about it, then through practice gradually reach complete realisation. If one has not heard about the Dharma, one will not move from the first to the second identity.

Queequeg said:
Since Buddha is innate in reality, of course we encounter Buddha sooner, hopefully, or later.

Astus wrote:
Samsara has been going on without a beginning and apparently we have failed to attain buddhahood so far.

Queequeg said:
Its not a gradual path, which seems to be what you keep trying to relate this to.

Astus wrote:
A sudden path means buddhahood right now, no development, no practice, just perfect enlightenment. Would you say that the moment one utters NMRK one has unbounded wisdom and compassion?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
Anything and everything is the Middleway Buddha nature. This means any practice, any train of thought fully pursued to it's end, ends in full blown enlightenment.
...
As I've suggested above, why not any other chant. Sure. Why not just Zazen. Sure why not. Any practice will work. The dung beetle attains enlightenment perfecting his craft rolling balls of shit. This is the point of departure where in Japan, craftsmanship became a spiritual pursuit. Crafting the aesthetically perfectly imperfect tea bowl, or the perfection of kata.

Astus wrote:
Seeing that all is buddha-mind comes as the final realisation, so how can that be used to validate any practice? If it were true that anything fully pursued is a liberating path, what is the point of a Buddhist teaching? I mean, there have always been maximalists, hedonists, extremists, etc. This reasoning seems to contradict both ordinary and Dharmic causality where one always needs specific causes and conditions to reach specific results.

Queequeg said:
Chanting is prescribed for the obstacle of a distracted mind. ... It's also a mnemonic sort of theory contemplation by virtue of it having been expounded by Zhiyi as the distillation/complete embodiment of the Buddha's teaching.

Astus wrote:
And in that way chanting is one of the most popular practises everywhere, even beyond Buddhism.

Queequeg said:
It's also, at a level I can only describe as mystic, a melding with the Buddha mind.

Astus wrote:
There are teachings addressing the relation between recitation/chanting and realisation of buddha-mind, for instance it is called the "real mark buddha remembrance" (實相念佛) in the Pure Land school, but there realisation is qualitatively distinct from mere verbal repetition.

Queequeg said:
From the moment you hear the Buddha's name, you've irreversibly entered the Buddha path, just as the poor man is transformed the moment he hears that he is the rich man's son.

Astus wrote:
That is also a generally accepted concept derived from the 17th chapter (The Merit of the Initial Determination for Enlightenment) of the Avatamsaka Sutra, and used to illustrate how the 1st level - raising bodhicitta - of the path is equal to the 52nd level - buddhahood. But that does not mean one can just skip the 50 stages between start and finish.

Queequeg said:
NMRK is at the most basic level, this introduction.

Astus wrote:
So is it that NMRK is meant as the first step that requires all the paramitas and stages to be followed up by? Like buddha remembrance in the Pure Land school that is meant to bring one to Sukhavati where one begins the actual training on the path of sages?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
What response is there to that?

Astus wrote:
Let me rephrase it then as a question: what is the connection between recitation and insight? How does one get from repeating the title to enlightenment?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
Thus declared Astus.

Astus wrote:
I'd rather like to find an explanation for it. As for me declaring anything, here are some passages from Huineng on the matter:

"Good friends, people of this world always recite prajñā with their mouths, but they don’t recognize the prajñā of the self-natures. This is like talking about eating, which doesn’t satisfy one’s hunger. ... To recite it orally without practicing it in the mind is [as unreal] as a phantasm or hallucination, [and as evanescent] as dew or lightning. To recite it orally and practice it mentally is for mind and mouth to correspond."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK ed, p 28)

[Fada] said, “I have recited the Lotus Sutra three thousand times.” 
The master said, “Even if you recite it ten thousand times it won’t help you understand the meaning of the scripture.”
...
Fada said, “If this is so, then should one just understand the meaning and not bother to recite the sutras?”
The master said, “Can the sutras be in error? How could they impede your mindfulness? It is just that delusion and enlightenment are in the person, that harm and benefit depend on oneself. To recite with the mouth and practice in the mind is to turn the sutra. To recite with the mouth without practicing in the mind is to be turned by the sutra.”
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK ed, p 55, 58)

"To learn and recite is the small vehicle, to be enlightened to the Dharma and understand its meaning is the middle vehicle, and to cultivate according to the Dharma is the Great Vehicle. To penetrate all the myriad dharmas and to be equipped with all the myriad dharmas, without any defilement at all; to transcend the characteristics of the various dharmas, without anything that is attained: this is called the Supreme Vehicle."
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK ed, p 63)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
A teaching that posits emptiness and dependent origination as holistically integrated in a single thought moment is complete. NMRK is a creature of this school of thought and refers to this so-called Threefold Integrated Truth.

Astus wrote:
Tendai has the practice of contemplating the threefold truth, and that is understood to be the vipasyana leading to the wisdom of enlightenment. Repeating merely the title of a text that does not even include explicitly that doctrine seems very far from that. They are further from each other than the difference between riding a bike and repeating the name of a bike.

Queequeg said:
by practicing NMRK, even with the most feeble intent, their mind has oriented to the sublime reality and they are treading the path; in time, they will become increasingly familiar with the Mind of MRK which is the Buddha's mind.)

Astus wrote:
To say that it serves as a basis for later development sounds fine to me, but not anything beyond that.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
DGA said:
The explicit practice--the recitation of those Sino-Japanese characters--Buddha Shakyamuni did not teach that, as you acknowledge.  I think that's uncontroversial.

Astus wrote:
This is what I referred to with pointing out the absence of the practice in the scriptures.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
So are we debating whether Buddha taught the Lotus Sutra?

Astus wrote:
No, not that. Does the Lotus Sutra teach reciting its own title as a practice?

Queequeg said:
He taught single minded concentration on the real aspect of reality.

Astus wrote:
And that real aspect is a title of a scripture? Shouldn't it be something like suchness, emptiness, dependent origination, etc.?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: If according to Nichiren Buddhism, the Buddha taught people according to their level of understanding or capacity...
Content:
Queequeg said:
Shakyamuni did teach it.

Astus wrote:
If it had been taught by him, it should have been found in the sutras.

Queequeg said:
It was just expressed in a different string of sounds.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean he said one thing but meant another? Or do you refer to the general idea of reciting scripture titles?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Zen being subitist, I thought the above kind of goes without saying.

Astus wrote:
I think so far objections were about taking samath-vipasyana to be a step by step method, that is, it doesn't go without saying. As probably with any comparison, the first step is to define the elements compared.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Comparing shikantaza to the unity of samatha and vipasyana is not saying that it is like the gradual path of practising calm and insight, but it is like the accomplishing of both concentration and wisdom. That oneness of samadhi and prajna as the essence of Zen is explicitly stated in the Platform Sutra. It is no different from the inseparability of silence and illumination in Hongzhi's teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2017 at 3:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
rory said:
Fascinating, which translation are you using and whose footnotes?
gassho
Rory

Astus wrote:
It's from the BDK edition (Nishijima & Cross translation) that you can find online on their site. It is also connected to the online Taisho, so you can compare it with the original easily.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
rory said:
Dogen does deny any influence of Tendai shikan in Bendo wa

Astus wrote:
I have not found that part of Bendowa. What he writes there regarding shikan:

"[Someone] asks, “Is there nothing to prevent a person who practices this zazen from also performing mantra and quiet-reflection practices?”
I say: When I was in China, I heard the true essence of the teachings from a true master; he said that he had never heard that any of the patriarchs who received the authentic transmission of the Buddha-seal ever performed such practices additionally, in the Western Heavens or in the Eastern Lands, in the past or in the present. Certainly, unless we devote ourselves to one thing, we will not attain complete wisdom."
(SBGZ, vol 1, p 16)

And the footnote to the question states for "quiet-reflection" (although I do not completely agree with it):

"Shikan, lit., “ceasing and reflecting,” representing the Sanskrit words śamatha (quietness) and vipaśyanā (insight, reflection), is a practice of the Tendai sect: the method of practice is almost the same as the practice of zazen explained by Master Dōgen, but in the Tendai sect the practice is not regarded as sufficient in itself."
(p28n85)

rory said:
He also mentions the direct connection between shamatha and the attainment of nirvana in Hsaio chih-kuan p. 86

Astus wrote:
That is an exaggeration. The section Bielefeldt refers to is about how one can attain calmness through realising emptiness. In other words, nirvana is perfect samatha.

rory said:
compares Dogen's samadhi of self-fufilling activity as 'unconditioned freedom' to Shinran's naturalness

Astus wrote:
I consider it a misunderstanding of both Shinran and Dogen to make such comparisons.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
DGA said:
I think Dogen is writing about something different from shi kan when he describes shikantaza.  For starters, he wasn't a fool.  If he wanted to discuss shi kan, he would have done so rather than developing a new concept to get his teaching across.

Astus wrote:
The only new thing about Dogen's approach to meditation that I can find is his focus on the physical posture. But as for what is to be done while seated, the matter of neither-thinking (hishiryo) and dropping body and mind (shinjin datsuraku), those are not different from prajnaparamita (non-abiding, no-thought, etc.).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
DGA said:
I remember reading around in book 6, in which zazen is described.

Astus wrote:
Book 6? The BDK edition has 4 volumes.

DGA said:
My point is that Dogen's descriptions of meditation don't really look or feel (if you will) like the teachings of Zhiyi.

Astus wrote:
Chan can be matched with Tiantai's sudden and perfect method of the neither sitting nor walking samadhi. Dogen's works are part of the mature Zen literature, so he uses lots of Chan lingo.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
DGA said:
Dōgen elaborates it in his Shōbōgenzō.

Astus wrote:
Where exactly? Briefly in the Bendowa he rejects the option of using Tendai or other methods for meditation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
While I never got much explanation of what is shikantaza when I was  involved in Zen, I will say that it basically sounds like what other teachers describe as the union of shamatha and vipaysana. If it's not, I'd love to know how/why it's different, other than the nomenclature used.

Astus wrote:
The traditional Zen term is the unity of samadhi and prajna.

"Good friends, our teaching takes meditation and wisdom as its fundamental. Everyone, do not say in your delusion that meditation and wisdom are different."
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK ed, p 41)

Dogen basically says the same by calling zazen practice-enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
is Soto Zen synonymous with Shikantaza only?

Astus wrote:
I think that depends on whom you ask. It seems to me that the mainstream answer is yes.

Justmeagain said:
Or to put it another way, does Soto Zen factor in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, Sattipatana, Jhana etc...I guess not.

Astus wrote:
Shikantaza is supposed to be a "perfect and complete" practice that includes the whole path. After all, it is the practice of enlightenment.

"The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice. It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice-realization of totally culminated enlightenment."
( http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 10th, 2017 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Is Shikantaza a requisite of being a Soto Zennie?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
...or do Soto practitioners also practice Samatha and Vipassana?

Astus wrote:
What would it mean to be a "Soto practitioner" without actually practising it? Sounds like being a fisherman without ever fishing.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 9th, 2017 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: What is the creation of the universe story in Buddhism?
Content:
Pjotr said:
Is the meaning of "without discoverable beginning" the same as "no beginning"? Does that sutta phrase "a first point is not discerned" imply "there is no first point"?

Astus wrote:
In simple terms, yes.

III.19d. In this way the circle of existence is without beginning.
Arising by reason of the defilements and actions; defilements and actions by reason of arising; arising by reason of the defilements and actions: the circle of existences is thus without beginning. In order for it to begin, it would be necessary for the first item to have no cause: and if one dharma arises without a cause, then all dharmas would arise without causes. Now the determination of time and place show that a seed produces a shoot, that a fire produces cooking: hence there is no arising that does not have causes. On the other hand, the theory of a single and permanent cause has been refuted above (ii.65): hence the cycle of existence has no beginning.
(Abhidharmakosabhasyam, vol 2, p 400-401)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 8th, 2017 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: What is the creation of the universe story in Buddhism?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
It's also important to understand that when the Buddha was quizzed about whether the world was eternal or of finite duration, that this is one of the 'undetermined questions'. They are questions which the Buddha wouldn't answer and suggested that they be put aside.

Astus wrote:
There is a whole samyutta (Anamataggasamyutta - Connected Discourses on Without Discoverable Beginning) on the topic of samsara having no beginning, so it is not at all such a dubious or unanswered issue in Buddhism.

"Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would cut up whatever grass, sticks, branches, and foliage there are in this Jambudipa and collect them together into a single heap. Having done so, he would put them down, saying [for each one]: ‘This is my mother, this my mother’s mother.’ The sequence of that man’s mothers and grandmothers would not come to an end, yet the grass, wood, branches, and foliage in this Jambudipa would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish, and disaster, and swelled the cemetery."
(SN 15.1, tr Bhikkhu Bodhi)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 8th, 2017 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: What is the creation of the universe story in Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Temporal_cosmology


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 7th, 2017 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
It may be that Buddha is true 1 hood and emptiness both in an uncompounded unity. Form and emptiness comprise a unity. Ultimately, it is impossible for anything to be a 'compounded' substance because temporal one's do not exist.

Astus wrote:
The 4th and final dharmadhatu in the Huayan teaching is the interpenetration of phenomena with phenomena. In other words, there's just dependent origination. Or as http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-062-012/translation says:

"This dependent arising is the dharmakāya of all the tathāgatas. A person who sees dependent arising sees the Tathāgata."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 6th, 2017 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Temicco said:
if modern Chinese Buddhists connected to the Linjizong

Astus wrote:
What I meant to say that being a member of the "Linji lineage" means virtually nothing in terms of what one studies and practices. For instance, Ven. Hsing Yun is a Linji lineage member, and so is every monastic in Fo Guang Shan, while for all intents and purposes that organisation embraces all "eight schools" and propagates Humanistic Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 6th, 2017 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Temicco said:
Why? Which books might talk about this?

Astus wrote:
I recommend the works of Albert Welter, most probably Yongming Yanshou's Conception of Chan in the Zongjing Lu touches on the subject of the emerging Linjizong in early Song.

Temicco said:
Wait, sorry, what's this an example of?

Astus wrote:
Zongmi claimed to be a descendant/follower of Shenhui, just as Yongming followed Zongmi's teachings later. They all use a very positive and assertive language for buddha-nature.

Temicco said:
for those who are interested in the Linji zong teachings

Astus wrote:
Are you aware that in the last couple hundred years the Linjizong has been practically synonymous with Chinese Buddhism? I mean, the term means almost nothing outside of the Song and late Ming era sectarian debates.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 5th, 2017 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
It seems the Buddha did not say 1 in 1; but Kegon have. I wouldn't say that this in any way weakens the proposition: 1 in 1.

Astus wrote:
It is on page 30 in "Messenger of the Heart", and it refers to a basic Huayan/Kegon teaching in relation to the third dharmadhatu, the interpenetration of principle and phenomena. Your version of an "ultimate 1" seems not in accord with Huayan teachings either. Here is Chengguan's explanation:

Take the first point, "one in one": because the first "one" does not lose its characteristics, it has substance, which contains; because it is noumenally not different from the second "one," it can contain the second "one." Meanwhile, since the second "one" is noumenally not different from the first "one," in accord with the contained noumenon it is in the first "one," because there is no phenomenon outside of noumenon.
Second, as for "one in all," because all do not lose their characteristics, they have substance which contains; being noumenally not different from the one, they can contain the one. Because the one is noumenally not different from the all, in accord with the principle of its own oneness the one is in the all.
Third, as for "all in one," because one does not lose its characteristics, it can be that which contains, while because it is noumenally not different from the all it can contain all. The all which is contained is noumenally not different from the one, so in accord with the noumenon inherent in all it is in the one.
Fourth, as for " all in all," because the first "all" do not lose their characteristics they have substance which contains; noumenally not being different from the second "all," they therefore contain the second "all." Because the second "all" noumenally are not different from the first "all," in accord with the noumenon of the second "all" they are in the first "all." Therefore in the conclusion he says each has a reason.
(Entry into the Inconceivable, p 114-115)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 5th, 2017 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
To say that 1 in 1 is self or not self is binary. In ideal 1, Buddha cannot be said to be the selfless self. He cannot be said to be the self that is no self. He is only and simply 1.

Astus wrote:
In what way does that relate to the four noble truths, the six paramitas, and the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment? How is that connected to freedom from attachment to concepts and emotions?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 5th, 2017 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
Im sorry Astus my source was: The Book of Angelus Silesius (auth. Frederick Franck), he quotes from the Avatamsaka sutra on page (?).

Astus wrote:
Search gave only this one result, that somewhat contradicts your assumption of oneness:

"The Hwa Yen sutra says: The incalculable aeons are but one moment, and that moment is no moment, thus one sees the Reality of the Universe"
(Messenger of the Heart: The Book of Angelus Silesius with Observations by the Ancient Zen Masters, p 31)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 5th, 2017 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
the Buddha said that "One is One", not only one emptiness, but also 1 - 1.

Astus wrote:
Where exactly is that stated by the Buddha?

White Lotus said:
I was amazed by the Mipham quote, but feel he only addresses the samsaric notion of singularity.

Astus wrote:
Are you saying you have a new meaning for the number 1?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Waste of precious time...?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
why bother and what on earth am I doing leaving that warm bed and woman to sit on a cushion if there's no rationale for it???

Astus wrote:
It is following one's ideas about gain and loss that generates suffering. Shikantaza is the practice of enlightenment, that is, freedom from gain and loss.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Waste of precious time...?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
It feels like I am quite literally just sitting there, on my arse, staring at the floor.

Astus wrote:
What else should be there? That's why it's called just sitting.

Justmeagain said:
How do I get around this feeling of wasting precious time?

Astus wrote:
That is the desire to attain something. But there is nothing to attain.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Temicco said:
Huangbo's lectures, Foyan's writings, Dahui's letters, Hongzhi's CTEF, Wumen's Wumenguan, Yuanwu's letters, Yuanwu's Biyan lu, the majority of the sayings records translated thus far

Astus wrote:
Since Huangbo was Zongmi's contemporary, you basically mean Song era texts. The problem with that approach is that the type of Chan that Zongmi and Yongming represented were rejected by the proponents of Song era Linjizong teachers. First good example of that is Shenhui's treatment in the final version of the Platform Sutra where Huineng says to him:

“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.”
(Platform Sutra, ch 8, BDK ed, p 78)

Dahui criticised Zongmi's views (see Morten Schlütter: How Zen Became Zen. p 120-121), but certainly even Dogen has heard of Zongmi (see Eihei Koroku, p237n78, p403-404).

Temicco said:
I believe some of Wansong's comments in Congrong lu reference him

Astus wrote:
Yes, he quotes him as Guifeng five times: case 1 (referring to his Origin of Humanity), case 42, case 45 (from his commentary on the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra), case 56, case 58 (from his commentary on the Diamond Sutra).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Temicco said:
In any event, his own authority as a Zen teacher is nil outside of certain circles.

Astus wrote:
What authority do you mean? His works are still studied by Chinese Buddhists, so I don't know what more could one want.

Temicco said:
I don't mean the Jingde Chuandeng lu or anything, even just the primary and secondary writings of other Southern lineage Zen teachers.

Astus wrote:
Could you be more specific? What writings?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 3rd, 2017 at 3:58 PM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Temicco said:
By who? He seems to have been invisible to the bulk of the Southern lineage teachers, being referenced mainly in Korean Zen lit.

Astus wrote:
He is considered the fifth patriarch of Huayan, and that in itself should be sufficient. He is also the primary commentator of the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra. His most outstanding spiritual heir was Yongming Yanshou, whose works have also been quite influential all over East Asia. As for his marginal role in Song era Chan compilations - on which I assume you base Zongmi's invisibility - that comes from the sectarian nature of such writings, but even in those books they did list him.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 3rd, 2017 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
how do you see an interest in 1 harming my practice, is it danger of attachment? Surely 1 is by its nature: non attached.

Astus wrote:
I do not know what your practice is. Upholding the precepts and cultivating calming the mind do not necessarily interfere with such an assumption. When it comes to studying, comprehending, and realising the Dharma, then it is better to be open and attentive about what is actually taught instead of approaching it with the attitude of only confirming one's preexisting views. For instance, the whole of reality can be summed up as the five aggregates, and the realisation of truth can be achieved through recognising that there is no independent entity or thing within or without the aggregates. Focusing on the aggregates, or the six sensory realms, means basing oneself on actual experience, instead of theories disconnected from one's life. As for seeing the complete unreality of oneness/singularity, here is Mipham's summary:

"To begin with, there is an analysis of the essential identity of all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena to determine whether or not there is true singularity. In the case of those conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates possessing physical form, there is a division into above, below, the cardinal and intermediate directions and the centre. Through this, it can be seen that, for something such as a vase, singularity is simply a conceptual notion applied to the various features that are the basis for such an imputation. True singularity is not established, and the same applies in the case of its component parts. The body and the limbs are also divided into parts in the same way.

In short, all that possesses physical form and is composed of material particles may be broken down to its basis, which is the infinitely small particle. And, according to the logic explained before, for that most subtle particle to be surrounded by particles in the various directions, it must have sides, which means it must have parts, and so on, in an infinite regression. If not, then however many subtle particles are gathered together, they could never grow any larger. Thus, all phenomena with material form lack true singularity.

In addition, the eight or the six collections of consciousness can not be established as truly singular since they consist of various cognitive acts and mental states, take various features as their focus, and arise in different forms from the gathering of the four conditions, and then cease.

By analyzing everything that has the nature of arising and ceasing deriving from its own causes, even the subtlemost indivisible moment can not be established, and so all phenomena included within mind and matter lack any true singularity. As for non-concurrent formations, they are simply imputations made upon the ‘occasion’ of mind and matter, and so they lack any essential identity. Unconditioned phenomena are imputations made with regard to the eliminated aspects of objects of negation, and are also lacking in any essential identity.

In short, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena can not be shown to have any true singularity, and since this is not established, plurality that is made up of what is singular must also remain unestablished. And so, since there is no mode of true existence aside from being truly singular or plural, it must follow that individuals and phenomena are proven to be without inherent identity, just as it is explained more elaborately in The Ornament of the Middle Way."
(Investigation of the Essential Identity: ‘Neither One Nor Many’ from http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 1st, 2017 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
i think that to speak of a "substance" that does not change may be unhelpful.

Astus wrote:
Whatever that is the object of attachment is assumed to be an unchanging thing, a substance. To see that such an object is merely the product of conceptual fabrication is recognising emptiness, and thus ending attachment.

White Lotus said:
We know that all language misses the point when we are talking about emptiness as an ultimate: it is nameless, wordless and beyond all concept.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is the ultimate in that it is the absence of identification, of reification, and therefore of clinging.

White Lotus said:
In the same way 1 which is the focal point of emptiness of emptiness is too simple to say much about. Only that 1 is 1 and independent. I am inclined to think that it is not dependent upon anything. If we say that everything is impermanent we know that there is bound to be an exception to this rule.

Astus wrote:
That is another example of assuming a substance, hence a basis of attachment and suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 31st, 2017 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
"If i look for the substance that changes it turns out to be nowhere." because everything is dependent and has no self?

Astus wrote:
Because if everything changes, then there cannot be a separate substance that does not change.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 31st, 2017 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It sometimes feels to me like in our culture this approach risks turning into a Dharmic form of anti-intellectualism, and is often accompanied by "dude you can't learn Dharma from a book" (which while true in many ways, is sort of beside the point, and devalues scholarship and study). Am I just being paranoid, is it just my quirks and pet peeves, or is this a real trend that others have observed?

Astus wrote:
As I see it, the so called simple/direct methods are usually very basic practices with a lot of verbal ornamentation like "sudden enlightenment", "highest teaching", etc. They serve as entry points.

Through learning, one will comprehend dharmas.  /  聞已得知法
Through learning, one will not do evil.                  /  聞已不作惡
Through learning, one will give up harm.              /  聞已離無利
Through learning, one will gain nirvāṇa.               /  聞已得涅槃
(The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra of The Absorption That Encapsulates All Merit, tr 84000.co / T382p999a)

Johnny Dangerous said:
I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of  protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.

Astus wrote:
Knowledge is not provisional, it is quite essential. Interestingly, what is called the "sudden path" by both Bodhidharma (Two Entrance and Four Practices) and Dakpo Tashi (Mahamudra Moonlight, p 144) are for people established in the Dharma.

But this is really a very old problem with oversimplification. See Zhiyi:

"There is a type of meditation master who exclusively utilizes cessation-type practice and does not allow for the practice of contemplation. ... There is also a type of meditation master who exclusively utilizes the practice of contemplation and does not allow for the practice of cessation. ... Both of these types of teachers follow only one of the methods for realizing [enlightenment], and teach other people on the basis of the benefit they have received from [their one-sided practice]. Those who study [under them] are not aware of their [one-sided] intentions. [It is like the story in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra] “one who exclusively drinks milk will have difficulty getting a drink [of cream], not to mention ghee.” If people rely exclusively [on either cessation or contemplation, or on only one teaching or practice] to attain understanding, then what was the reason for the Buddha to offer such a variety of teachings? The heavens are not always clear; a doctor does not rely exclusively on powdered medicine; one does not always eat rice."
(quoted by Paul L. Swanson in https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/en/files/2012/11/Chih-i-on-Zen-and-Chih-kuan-8-2003.pdf, p 8)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 31st, 2017 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
White Lotus said:
seeing impermanence leading to emptiness is unatural.

Astus wrote:
Impermanence is easier to see first. It is fairly common sense to know that nothing lasts forever. Then when it's broken down to finding the substance that changes, it turns out to be nowhere, hence empty.

"when a sentient being perceives the birth of a dharma, you should have him discard the view of its nonexistence. When he perceives the death of a dharma, you should have him discard the view of its existence. If he discards these views, he will realize that dharmas are by nature absolutely empty and definitely have no birth"
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra53a.html, ch 2)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 23rd, 2017 at 7:05 PM
Title: From Impermanence to Buddhahood
Content:
Astus wrote:
Impermanence is the gateway to emptiness.
Emptiness is the gateway to non-birth.
Non-birth is the gateway to Buddhahood.

"What is the Buddha’s path? It is the bodhi-mind, the mind of Nirvana. To walk on the Buddha’s path is to follow the path of the Great Enlightened One, the one who attained the Great Nirvana, the one who has reached ultimate liberation. Through great enlightenment, one sees all phenomena with pure luminosity. From the perspective of departing from all defilements, the Buddha saw the ultimate truth: the non-arising and non-ceasing  of  all  phenomena. Through complete cessation, he achieved total peace of mind. This complete cessation does not mean that everything is extinguished. It is the cessation of all defilements and habitual tendencies. After achieving cessation, an Enlightened One begins a new life, a life of selfless service to benefit sentient  beings.
As practitioners, we must understand impermanence. Impermanence is the gateway to emptiness.
Thus to understand emptiness, we must start with an understanding  of  impermanence. Emptiness, in turn, is the gateway to non-birth. By understanding emptiness, you will not be attached to life. In other words, you will transcend the two extremes and all dualities. In this way, you will be able to enter non-birth. Non-birth is the gateway to Buddhahood. Understanding non-birth, one will no longer be attached to life, one will no longer be afflicted by the  miseries of life. One can learn and practice the Dharma in the cycle of birth and death and enter the path to Buddhahood."

( http://bodhimonastery.org/ven-jen-chun.html: http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN292.pdf, p 53-54)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 21st, 2017 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Muso Soseki's Direct Pointing
Content:
Astus wrote:
What part do you call the direct pointing in that quite formal speech?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 17th, 2017 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Zongmi on Chan
Content:
Anonymous X said:
But the other part of commenting on the other schools as he does, could have a political implication that some academics might run with and accuse Zongmi of 'divide and rule' tactics, perhaps for the reason of state funding his school.

Astus wrote:
Zongmi at the time of writing those works on the Chan schools was a teacher living in Chang'an as an honoured master invited by the emperor. It seems he had no monastery or school to get sponsors for. so there appears to be no economical or political reasons behind his presentation of other groups.

Anonymous X said:
Was he considered a supreme master, a manipulator, or both, maybe?

Astus wrote:
He was considered a great teacher, a sophisticated and erudite monastic.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 16th, 2017 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: The Goal Of Meditation.
Content:
Joka said:
When one meditates, what is its goal for the individual?  What is its purpose? What is meditation fulfilling?

Astus wrote:
Zanmai-o-zanmai (SBGZ, BDK ed, vol 3, p 371):

To transcend the whole universe at once, to live a great and valuable life in the house of the Buddhist patriarchs, is to sit in the full lotus posture. To tread over the heads of non-Buddhists and demons; to become, in the inner sanctum of the Buddhist patriarchs, a person in the concrete state, is to sit in the full lotus posture. To transcend the supremacy of the Buddhist patriarchs’ supremacy, there is only this one method. Therefore, Buddhist patriarchs practice it solely, having no other practices at all. Remember, the universe in sitting is far different from other universes. Clearly understanding this truth, Buddhist patriarchs pursue and realize the establishment of the will, training, the state of bodhi, and nirvana.

Joka said:
Also, for the poor working class slob like myself that is constantly working seven days a week, can the same kind of attainment be done with just purely mental meditation while working?

Astus wrote:
Bendowa (SBGZ, BDK ed, vol 1, p 16-17):

[Someone] asks, “People who leave home get free of all involvements at once, so they have no hindrances in practicing zazen and pursuing the truth. How can a busy layperson devotedly do training and be at one with the unintentional state of Buddhist truth?”

I say: In general, the Buddhist Patriarch,86 overfilled with pity, left open a wide and great gate of compassion so that all living beings could experience and enter [the state of truth]; what human being or god could not want to enter? Thus, when we study the past and the present, there are many confirmations of such [experience and entry]. For instance, Taisō and Junsō were, as emperors, very busy with affairs of state [but] they pursued the truth by sitting in zazen and realized the Buddhist Patriarch’s great truth. Both Minister Ri (Ch. Li) and Minister Bō (Ch. Fang), serving as [the emperor’s] lieutenants, were the arms and legs of the whole nation [but] they pursued the truth by sitting in zazen and experienced and entered the Buddhist Patriarch’s truth. This [practice-and-experience] rests only upon whether or not the will is present; it does not relate to whether the body stays at home or leaves home. Moreover, any person who profoundly discerns the superiority or inferiority of things will naturally have belief. Still more, those who think that worldly affairs hinder the Buddha-Dharma only know that there is no Buddha-Dharma in the world; they do not know that there are no worldly dharmas in the state of Buddha. Recently in great Song [China] there was [a man] called Minister Hyō (Ch. Feng), a high-ranking official who was accomplished in the Patriarch’s truth. In his later years he made a poem in which he expressed himself as follows:

When official business allows, I like to sit in zazen.
I have seldom slept with my side touching a bed.
Though I have now become prime minister,
My fame as a veteran practitioner has spread across the four seas.

This was somebody with no time free from official duties but, because his will to the Buddha’s truth was deep, he was able to attain the truth. We should reflect on ourselves [in comparison] with him, and we should reflect on the present [in comparison] with those days. In the great kingdom of Song, the present generation of kings and ministers, officials and commoners, men and women, all apply their mind to the Patriarch’s truth, without exception. Both the military and literary classes are resolved to practice [za]zen and to learn the truth. Those who resolve it will, in many cases, undoubtedly clarify the mental state. Thus, it can naturally be inferred that worldly affairs do not hinder the Buddha-Dharma. When the real Buddha-Dharma spreads throughout a nation the buddhas and the gods guard [that nation] ceaselessly, so the reign is peaceful. When the imperial reign is peaceful, the Buddha- Dharma comes into its own. Furthermore, when Śākyamuni was in the world, [even] people of heavy sins and wrong views were able to get the truth, and in the orders of the ancestral masters, [even] hunters and old woodcutters entered the state of realization, to say nothing of other people. We need only study the teaching and the state of truth of a true teacher.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: Lay Chan Teachers
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Is this the same Pei Xiu that corresponded with Zongmi and compiled Huang Po's records?

Astus wrote:
Yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Japanese Zen Buddhist Traditions.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Official sites:

http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/index.html
http://zen.rinnou.net/index.html

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Zen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dt%C5%8D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinzai_school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cbaku

Books:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SjfvBQAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=BnLOFwx1SpUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=EPXEoMtND24C
https://books.google.com/books?id=kxhiCAAAQBAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=ypIL2wz3IBUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=DxvF5XIJpnUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=CyV4PaqMzd4C

https://books.google.com/books?id=uRfVBAAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2ZcNszTH6gAC


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that arhats suffer from obscurations, and that their wisdom is insufficient to perceive the real nature of phenomena, even though they have a partial realization through which they can claim to be liberated (and liberation in Buddhadharma simply means being free of the afflictions that cause rebirth in samsara).

Astus wrote:
And my question is still the same: how can one be obscured in any way, when no aggregate is grasped at? And aggregates mean all the possible experiences that occur. So there is no physical appearance, no feeling, no thought, no state of consciousness that can delude an arhat. On the other hand, to say that an arhat clings to cessation requires the assumption that he sees the aggregates as enemies, is bound by a specific peaceful state free from appearances, and still has extreme views of existence and annihilation. I see only the latter as the object of criticism, while at the same time that type of flawed arhat is hardly acceptable even for the shravakas, although this is a point where interpretations among them may be different. For instance:

"During fruition absorption, the mind is fully absorbed in its object, nibbāna, the cessation of all conditioned phenomena. It does not perceive anything else. Nibbāna is completely different from the conditioned mental and physical phenomena and conceptual objects that belong to this world or any other. So you cannot perceive or remember this world (i.e., your own body) or any other during fruition absorption, and you are free from all thoughts. Even if there are obvious objects around to see, hear, smell, touch, and so on, you will not be aware of any of them."
(Mahasi Sayadaw: Manual of Insight, p 295)

That description of nirvana sounds very much like the latter type of arhat. On the other hand, looking at Maha Boowa's description:

"When avijjã is extinguished, conditioned phenomena—which give rise to dukkha—are also extinguished. They have disappeared from the knowing nature of the citta. Conditioned phenomena, such as thoughts, which are an integral part of the khandhas, continue to function in their own sphere but they no longer cause dukkha. Uncorrupted by kilesas, they simply give form and direction to mental activity. Consciousness arises in the mind, purely and simply without producing suffering."
(The Path to Arahantship, p 62)

There it's only craving, only clinging that is gone, since it's not the phenomena that constitute the problem, but only attachment. And that I think is a crucial difference. Even though there are suttas where it's stated simple that one has to abandon phenomena (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html ), but it's clarified that - just the the four noble truths state - it is craving and clinging that need to end (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.191.than.html ). In this case, it's the former type of arhat that can have no delusion regarding anything.

Malcolm said:
there is nothing there which is not anticipated by Mahāyāna critiques of the limitations of the śrāvaka teachings

Astus wrote:
No doubt that the shravaka teachings are significantly more limited. But that is not the problem here.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Personally, I think you are reading with a Mahāyāna bias, and interpolating your own view on the view of śrāvakas.

Astus wrote:
I'm afraid there is a not so small possibility of that. I got that impression yesterday right when I looked up Mahasi's Manual of Insight.

Malcolm said:
Since there is no evidence that śrāvakas negate characteristics through a vipaśyāna analysis that allows them to see through characteristics, there is also no evidence that they are free from clinging to characteristics.

Astus wrote:
The four noble truths are what is taught to be the definitive insight one needs to gain on the shravaka path. And there what one needs to recognise is how there is suffering, how suffering arises, how it ceases, and how one can bring it to cessation. In short, the goal is not to have or maintain any ideas of what characterises phenomena, but to let go of them, to end one's clinging. So, what I don't see the evidence of is how there can remain anything one keeps being hooked on anything.

Malcolm said:
One assumes that ancient Mahāyānis had ample contact and debate with those who were reputed to be śrāvaka arhats.

Astus wrote:
I'm not so sure. It rather seems to me that what they tend to refute are their own interpretations of abhidharma materials. Have you perhaps encountered this small book: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Maha_Boowa_The_Path_to_Arahantship.pdf?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is only the selflessness of persons, not phenomena, because there is no refutation of characteristics themselves. But, for example, in Mahāyāna, even the characteristics by which phenomena are apprehended are refuted. This is the main difference.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that is a clear difference. On the one side it's rise and fall, birth and death, while on the other it's unarisen and unceasing, unborn and undying.

Malcolm said:
The absence of a self in persons is only mentioned in these Mahāyāna sūtras

Astus wrote:
Did you do a search specifically for pudgala naitratmya? That (人無我) doesn't seem to be a common term in Chinese either, although using synonyms can turn up further results.

Malcolm said:
śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have trained in characteristics of the aggregate, etc., that lack a self because of being impermanent and so on, rather than in emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Contemplation of the three characteristics are what is said to bring about the realisation of the three gates of liberation, so there is a correlation.

Malcolm said:
It is asserted that they cling to characteristics, not that they cling to the aggregates, etc., per se.

Astus wrote:
An this is something I have difficulty to take literally on a practical level. Sure, most of the usual criticisms of arhats look valid for people obsessed with total cessation and/or systems and lists of dharmas. But I fail to see them as anything but common warnings one can find in all sorts of teachings, and that is likely the reason why Mahayana traditions kept this view of the arhat alive (at the same time, arhats in East Asia are also popular spirit/deity/bodhisattva-like beings). Although looking at the http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html can give the impression that the criticism is valid, it's also possible to say that as both body and mind are let go of, there can be no hindrances left, nor even clinging to characteristics, since even those are just thoughts.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 13th, 2017 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Daṃṣṭrasenam, in his commentary on the 100,000 lines Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, notes that the result of possessing those traces mentions specifically that arhats can err, gossip, can be unattractive, are forgetful, and so on.

Astus wrote:
Thanks for looking it up. The same traits are mentioned elsewhere regarding arhats as well, aren't they? Still, nice to know.

Malcolm said:
The most important point is that śrāvakayanists in general do not meditate on the view of emptiness. As we will see below, they meditate in the four truths and this is how they attain their awakening. They realize the person as a momentary formation and this is what it means to say that an arhat realizes "the selflessness of persons." But they do not meditate directly on the view of emptiness in anyway. The  Goenka Vipassana school is an excellent example of this principle.

Astus wrote:
The part where it is true is that the path described that way is what is found in the abhidharma works, although there can be differences. The part where it is not true is the Nikayas/Agamas and those Theravada teachers who don't follow the abhidhamma. Look at this description for instance: http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html. Also, it is quite common in Mahayana to describe arhats by their realisation of the emptiness of self, and sometimes even by the realisation of the emptiness of phenomena.

Malcolm said:
Thus, it is somewhat inane to speculate about where traces reside in an arhat. It is also somewhat foolish to assert that arhats realize the selflessness of phenomena when it has nothing at all to do with how they achieve their realization since they never even meditate the view of the emptiness of the person let alone emptiness in general.

Astus wrote:
The issue is whether they are attached to the aggregates or not. In order to keep any form of traces, obscurations, or defilements for arhats, they necessarily have to still cling to the aggregates and the areas, and what they attain then as a pseudo-nirvana is nirodha-samapatti, hence as you quote "Through perceiving sensation and perception as flaws, they solely rely on the method of pacifying them and are intoxicated with an intoxicating samadhi that lacks the wisdom that realizes the truth."

Malcolm said:
Thus we can also see there is no place where such arhats "reside" after death, no Hinayāna pure land. After their nirvana, arhats have no location per se, being like "logs floating on the ocean, moved by the waves."

Astus wrote:
Or they could be simply put into the formless realms, as I think some Zen texts do.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 12th, 2017 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
PuerAzaelis said:
You asked "where" they exist in an arhat.
Where else would they exist other than in the place they always have existed?
It's not like they change places.

Astus wrote:
Where have they always existed then?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 12th, 2017 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
PuerAzaelis said:
He just quoted three sutras answering precisely that. What else is he supposed to do?

Astus wrote:
The three quotes merely state that

"Srāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have not abandoned all connection with traces"
"not completely destroyed traces"
"they are confused through the other traces of affliction"

and the questions raised are in response to that concept of remaining traces.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 12th, 2017 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Attachment is not the issue, traces are.

Astus wrote:
By traces do you mean anusaya? If yes, the Samuccaya (p 100-101) has the same list as the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.011.than.html, and they need to be abandoned and destroyed ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.012.than.html ), otherwise there is still rebirth ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.than.html ). Even though the Srimaladevi Sutra (ch 5, BDK ed p 26-28, cf. Brunnhölzl: When the Clouds part, p 364-365) splits up the list and calls ignorance not removed by arhats, since that ignorance itself means the cognitive obscuration where one still clings to concepts, I still find no basis for assigning that to arhats. So, where do those traces exist in an arhat in your view?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 11th, 2017 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
now you think that arhats are tathāgatas.

Astus wrote:
The problem I'm raising here is that ascribing attachment to arhats is not supported by reason. So far there has been no substantiated argument against that. It is another issue if buddhahood is defined on the basis of the complete absence of attachment.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 11th, 2017 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Freedom from attachments does not equal freedom from proliferation.

Astus wrote:
When no concepts grasped, how can there be proliferation?

"There's no trail in space,
no outside contemplative. 
People are smitten with objectifications (papanca), 
but devoid of objectification (nippapanca) are the Tathagatas."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.18.than.html.254)

Malcolm said:
If it did, arhats would be omniscient. They also could not fall back from the state of arhatship, but some do.

Astus wrote:
Those are clearly problematic points, but secondary.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 10th, 2017 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Resources for Comparison of Buddhist Canons?
Content:
Astus wrote:
CBETA has several canons online: http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/
And the complete Taisho Tripitaka: http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT/ddb-sat2.php
Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon: http://www.dsbcproject.org/
Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages: http://mbingenheimer.net/tools/bibls/transbibl.html
Nanjio's Catalogue: http://www.kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~wittern/data/nanjio-catalog.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
The question is not whether they are bound. The question is "what kind of realization is necessary for freedom from rebirth?" The answer is: "Not very deep."

Astus wrote:
How is that the question? What realisation is deeper/higher then what is free from all attachments, hence also free from conceptual proliferation?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Prasangika, Conventional Analysis, and Wordly Consensus
Content:
Bakmoon said:
How can Prasangikas meaningfully talk about things that are just out of the range of ordinary beings? For example, Karma, the twelve links of dependent origination, and a lot of other teachings are not part of worldly consensus, and yet all Buddhists accept these things.

Astus wrote:
Conventional truth does not mean "popular vote", but rather what is considered reasonable by intelligent people of the society. The teachings of the Buddha are of the highest value among all conventional concepts, as the Buddha was the wisest of all. As for what prasangika stands for, it is merely a method of performing analysis with the intention of rejecting wrong views and gaining insight into emptiness. Or, as some may approach sutrayana, it is only for refuting those holding wrong views.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Arhats have the view that aggregates exist. But they do not cling to them. That is your disconnect.

Astus wrote:
If one has a view but does not cling to that view, does one actually have a view? For instance, an arhat has the view that a particular robe is his, still, it is not a view that binds him. Similarly, all teachings are recognised as pointing to liberation, and not something that one should remain attached to.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
You have not shown this to be so. In other words, there is a disconnect between your assertion that arhats are free from clinging to their aggregates and your assertion that they realize emptiness free from the four extremes.

Astus wrote:
The four extreme views are concepts. Concepts are within the domain of the aggregates. Arhats do not cling to the aggregates, hence they cannot have the four extreme views. Where is the disconnect here?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is nevertheless incorrect, and therefore, it is not surprising in the least that Arhats have a incomplete understanding of emptiness, which is the point of this whole exchange.

Astus wrote:
If by emptiness you refer to a conceptual explanation, yes, there can be misunderstandings. But if you mean freedom from the four extreme views, then they are necessarily free from those.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
One may have no attachments, but this still does not preclude one from imputing substantiality to this or that dharma.

Astus wrote:
Even if one free from attachments would have an incorrect assumption about something, it would be an assumption not grasped at.

This reminds me of a Zen story ( http://www.zenguide.com/zenmedia/books/content.cfm?t=the_gateless_gate&chapter=13 ).

One day Tokusan went down toward the dining room, holding his bowls.Seppo met him and asked, "Where are you off to with your bowls? The bell has not rung, and the drum has not sounded." Tokusan turned and went back to his room.
Seppo mentioned this to Ganto, who remarked, "Tokusan is renowned, but he does not know the last word."
Tokusan heard about this remark and sent his attendant to fetch Ganto. "You do not approve of me?" he asked. Ganto whispered his meaning.
Tokusan said nothing at the time, but the next day he ascended the rostrum, and behold! he was very different from usual!
Ganto, going toward the front of the hall, clapped his hands and laughed loudly, saying, "Congratulations! Our old man has got hold of the last word! From now on, nobody in this whole country can outdo him!"


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Understanding that there is no ghost in the machine is a not a refutation or negation of the machine's substantiality.

Astus wrote:
The machine is not the cause of the problems, it is the illusion of the ghost. Once there is no clinging, how could it matter what the status of something is? Even the concepts about the machine are let go of.

Malcolm said:
Becoming free from the clinging to the aggregates is possible merely through understanding they are impermanent. There is no need for a nondual understanding to attain arhatship, much less stream-entry.

Astus wrote:
Understanding impermanence is the path, abandonment of all attachments is the result. The point is that without attachment there is no basis for any view.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
smcj said:
Really? Prasangika Madhyamaka? Where? By whom? That is the big no-no.

Astus wrote:
It's not that unusual. I'd say it's a possible stage in one's learning, where the two truths are completely separated, and the ultimate sounds just like concepts that one is already familiar with, like God, oneness, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Arhats and stream entrants have identical views of selflessness.

Astus wrote:
They both have the correct view, but only arhats are free from clinging. It is because arhats are free from clinging to any aggregates that I said above that there is no place left for any attachment. If you claim that arhats are still afflicted by some form of attachment, the object of attachment must lie beyond the aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, a stream enterer is free from the fetter of attachment to wrong views. Such a person is not bound by the aggregates

Astus wrote:
A stream-enterer is still bound by the three poisons, hence attached to the aggregates. Having correct view is the beginning, not the end, and that's why there is a need for cultivation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Your argument is internally incoherent. According your argument, a stream entrant should be Vajradhara.

Astus wrote:
How so? A stream-entrant has correct view, but still very much bound by the aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Since skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are regarded as ultimate and real, even by arhats, they do not perceive the emptiness of phenomena.
Astus wrote:
Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.

Malcolm said:
Sure there can.

Astus wrote:
If no mental aggregate is clung to, in what form can there be attachment to any view? Unless concepts are beyond the aggregates, I do not see how that is possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 6th, 2017 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
the śrāvakas maintain these dharmas — aggregates, āyatanas, and dhātus — are substantially real

Astus wrote:
Aside from terminology, it is agreed on by both parties that a shravaka does not assume a self and has no clinging to the aggregates. So while the abhidharma style presentation may be criticised as incomplete, not the realisation, as being without attachment toward phenomena is the goal even in Mahayana.

Malcolm said:
But until we come to Madhyamaka, there is no school that can escape the charge of being substantialist, including Yogacara (a form of nondual substantialism).

Astus wrote:
I have seen Madhyamaka interpreted in a similar way, where emptiness is considered some sort of ultimate substratum. Then one might argue that is the wrong interpretation, however, the same could be said about arguments put against abhidharma and yogacara as well.

Malcolm said:
But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.

Astus wrote:
Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 6th, 2017 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
tiagolps said:
But to realize the emptiness of self you have to have some understanding of the emptiness of aggregates that make up the self, no?

Astus wrote:
The argument is that since in Hinayana the focus is on the method of recognising that there are only the aggregates but no self, they take the aggregates to be substantial. However, if we think about this a bit, this reasoning doesn't hold up, because shravakas need to realise that the aggregates are neither self nor the possessions of a self, so to say that they are regarded as substantial contradicts the teachings. Similarly, as in the Lankavatara Sutra, there is the argument that shravakas do not know that there is no grasping and no grasped, but that is again refutable once we consider that without attachment to the aggregates there is no basis any more for such a duality. Hence what is called the shravakayana in Mahayana scriptures refers practitioners who misunderstood things, and not what is actually found in the Hinayana works.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 6th, 2017 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
tiagolps said:
Ups, I meant śrāvakas have the realization... "So śrāvakas have the realization of the emptiness of self, but only have a partial realization of the emptiness of phenomena, is that how it should be understood?"

Astus wrote:
Shravakas believe that the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus have real existence - i.e. this is the common abhidharma doctrine - and this is why they are said not understand emptiness of dharmas. For more, here is a nice one from the http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm (2.18):

"Further, Mahamati, those who, afraid of sufferings arising from the discrimination of birth-and-death, seek for Nirvana, do not know that birth-and-death and Nirvana are not to be separated the one from the other; and, seeing that all things subject to discrimination have no reality, imagine that Nirvana consists in the future annihilation of the senses and their fields. They are not aware, Mahamati, of the fact that Nirvana is the Alayavijnana where a revulsion takes place by self-realisation. Therefore, Mahamati, those who are stupid talk of the trinity of vehicles and not of the state of Mind-only where there are no images. Therefore, Mahamati, 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."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 6th, 2017 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
According to the Lanka, no. Why? because even though arhats have no active or latent afflictions, they still have traces. This also applies to pratyekabuddhas.

Astus wrote:
The Lankavatara Sutra may be interpreted that way, although it does state:

"Having had an insight into their own vehicle, they abide at the fifth or the sixth stage where they do away with the rising of the passions, but not with the habit-energy; they have not yet passed beyond the inconceivable transformation-death, and their lion-roar is, "My life is destroyed, my morality is established, etc."; they will then discipline themselves in the egolessness of persons and finally gain the knowledge of Nirvana."
(2.20)

And the Cheng Weishi Lun explains:

"First question. - If Jneyavarana, assisting the pure deeds, produces existence (i.e., birth and death), the saints of the two Vehicles of the 'fixed' class (who cannot become Bodhisattvas) will never enter Nirupadhisesanirvana (Nirvana-without-residue). The same is true of the Prthagjanas who are fettered by their vexing passions (Klesavarana).
...
Reply to the first question. - The Jneyavarana does not constitute an obstacle to deliverance, because it is not in its power to provoke deeds and 'moisten' reincarnation."
(p 611, 613, tr Wei Tat)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 6th, 2017 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
Both commentaries state that while in reality the Buddha taught one vehicle, he did not teach the ekayāna to everyone. He taught the three vehicle system to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.

Astus wrote:
That is what the sutra explicitly says. But the question is whether arhatship can be a final attainment as nirvana without residue or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 5th, 2017 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, they are arhats. Jñānavajra's commentary

Astus wrote:
What does he say about the difference between the gotras then? I'm asking because since the Lankavatara was an important text for the Yogacarins, and they (Asanga, Vasubandhu, Xuanzang, etc.) did not accept the idea of a single vehicle, then that interpretation you referred to is not that obvious.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 5th, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
kirtu said:
LVI (56), verses 207-210 : http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-2.htm#chap2

Astus wrote:
Thanks. The sravakas described there have not attained arhatship, but mistaken cessation for nirvana. So that applies to those of indeterminate family, not those fixed to the attainment of arhatship.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 5th, 2017 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Lanka.

Astus wrote:
Where in the http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm is that taught? That sutra teaches the five gotras (2.20), and only those of the indeterminate lineage "who are instructed in these three lineages but who enter according to one teaching and succeed according to another." (tr Red Pine). This doctrine is also upheld by Yogacara where those who belong to the sravaka family attain the nirvana without residue and nothing more. Vasubandhu in his Commentary on the Lotus Sutra makes a clear distinction as well:

"This means that those who have produced the thought of enlightenment and who are carrying out bodhisattva practice will plant good roots of merit and be able to realize enlightenment. It is not the case that those who have not originally produced the thought of enlightenment, such as ordinary people and the disciples who are fixed [in the Small Vehicle], are able to attain it."
(Tiantai Lotus Texts, BDK ed, p 135)

and

"Regarding the disciples’ attainment of a prediction, [it should be known that] there are four types of disciples: 1) disciples who are fixed [in the path of the Small Vehicle], 2) arrogant disciples, 3) disciples who have retreated from the thought of enlightenment, and 4) transformation disciples.
The two types of disciples who receive a prediction from the tathāgatas are the transformation disciples and the disciples who have retreated from the thought of enlightenment. Since disciples who are fixed [in the path of the Small Vehicle] and arrogant disciples have faculties that are not yet mature, they are not given predictions of enlightenment."
(p 142)

Similarly, the Lankavatara Sutra states regarding the question of prediction given to arhats:

"Mahamati, there are Bodhisattvas practising the work of the Bodhisattva here and in other Buddha-lands, who, however, are desirous of attaining the Nirvana of the Sravakayana. In order to turn their inclination away from the Sravakayana and to make them exert themselves in the course of the Mahayana, the Sravakas in transformation are given assurance [as to their future Buddhahood] by the Body of Transformation"
(7.89, tr Suzuki)

And to clarify the meaning of arhat:

"Mahamati said: Now, the Blessed One declares that there are three kinds of Arhats: to which one of the three is this term "Arhat" to be applied? To one who makes straightway for the path of cessation? Or to one who neglects all his accumulated stock of merit for the sake of his vow to enlighten others? Or to one who is a form of the Transformation [Buddha]?
Replied the Blessed One: Mahamati, [the term "Arhat"] applies to the Sravaka who makes straightway for the path of cessation, and to no others. Mahamati, as for the others, they are those who have finished practising the deeds of a Bodhisattva; they are forms of the Transformation Buddha."
(2.49, tr Suzuki)

While the "sustaining power" of the Buddhas applies only to bodhisattvas and helps them get beyond various forms of absorption:

"What is this twofold power that sustains the Bodhisattvas? The one is the power by which they are sustained to go through the Samadhis and Samapattis; while the other is the power whereby the Buddhas manifest themselves in person before the Bodhisattvas and baptise them with their own hands."
(2.40, tr Suzuki)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 4th, 2017 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Malcolm said:
They are revived by a Buddha from a samadhi of cessation.

Astus wrote:
Do you know where this interpretation began? Nirodhasamapatti is accessible to both non-returners and arhats equally, and arhats are necessarily free from such formless absorptions in every system. Assuming that arhats are stuck in a samadhi of cessation contradicts what being an arhat means.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 2nd, 2017 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
kirtu said:
the text quotes from Buton Rinchen Drup who explicitly states that Arhats are reborn in a pure realm and then later aroused by a Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Chapter 7 of the Lotus Sutra mentions the apparitional/phantom city as a temporary rest for those with insufficient faith as a reference to sravakas.

"Knowing that they have reached nirvana
And attained arhatship, the Buddha immediately
Gathers the great assembly together
And teaches the True Dharma.
All the buddhas explain and teach
The three vehicles through skillful means.
Although there is only the single buddha vehicle,
They teach two in order to provide a place of rest."
(Lotus Sutra, BDK ed, p 138)

Vasubandhu explains the parable as:

"The arrogance [of those who] refer to what is actually nothing as something. Having [attained] mundane meditative trances and meditational attainments, they form the notion [that what they have attained is] nirvana, [though] [what they have] actually [attained] is not nirvana. It should be known that “The Parable of the Phantom City” is given as the antidote to this misconception.
...
[The parable] for the fourth type of person cause him, through expedient means, to enter the city of nirvana. The “city of nirvana” refers to the city of contemplations and meditative trances. Having gone past this city, he is then later made to enter the city of great nirvana."
(The Commentary on the Lotus Sutra, in Tiantai Lotus Texts, BDK ed, p 138-139)

So, what Buton seems to say and what Vasubandhu says is that arhats are not actually arhats, just people stuck within an absorption (dhyana).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 2nd, 2017 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That is because bodhisattvas are able to be voluntarily re-born - as the statement says - out of 'compassion and prayer' rather than being compelled by karma and klesa. But, nowhere does this statement say that Arhats are re-born anywhere, I had understood that the whole condition of the Arhat was 'no further re-birth'.

Astus wrote:
Arya-bodhisattvas have realised the emptiness of all appearances, so they are not bound by them any more. Arhats are also free from clinging to phenomena, so they are not bound by samsara either. The difference in the case of bodhisattvas, as you say, is that they are driven by bodhicitta. Since arhats do not have bodhicitta, there is no cause of birth at all. And that is why it is repeated in Mahayana scriptures that the most important thing is to have compassion for all beings, otherwise a bodhisattva strays to the path of sravakas and ends birth in nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 2nd, 2017 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The cause of the Hinayana Foe Destroyer's rebirth in the Hinayana Pure Lands is the wish to enjoy solitary peace.

Astus wrote:
Why would an arhat have such a wish? While the arhat is alive he is already unaffected by anything and enjoys complete peace, i.e. nirvana, regardless of the circumstances. If there were still the delusion that any environment can provide peace, such a person would not be an arhat.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The idea that there is no self at all is very curious. Even Buddhas have an I - this is the defining characteristic of a person. The problem is imputing an inherently existent I where there is not one; we simply see the I as existing in a way in which it does not, so no-self does not mean no self at all.

Astus wrote:
Of the five aggregates which one is the merely imputed self that necessarily exists in your opinion?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 2nd, 2017 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Rebirth is not contaminated from its own side.

Astus wrote:
What is the cause of rebirth itself then, if not ignorance?

Tsongkhapafan said:
The root cause, according to the 12 dependent-related links, is dependent-related ignorance.

Astus wrote:
OK, so it is ignorance.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No ignorance, no contaminated rebirth but that doesn't mean that one can't have a pure rebirth.

Astus wrote:
What is the cause of rebirth if not ignorance?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Bodhisattva Arhats take rebirth in samsara with complete freedom and control (Tulkus) and beings take rebirth in a Buddha's Pure Land.

Astus wrote:
Tulku - nirmanakaya - illusory body, also called emanation body. That is not rebirth.

Tsongkhapafan said:
There is a self, even after nirvana - a merely imputed self.

Astus wrote:
Has it not been merely imputed before nirvana?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Nirvana is not the extinction of self, it's the abandonment of the deluded view of self. Arhats exist after nirvana is attained, otherwise do they simply cease to exist? If there is no self, there is no existence at all. Buddha's teaching on selflessness is not that there is no self at all.

Astus wrote:
If seeing the self as a mere imputation is the correct view, and not the deluded one, then since being an imputation means that it is imaginary - like when seeing a trunk as a human the human is merely imputed - then there has never actually been a self in any form but as a misconception. However, you seem to say that not only there is really a self - not as a mere imputation - but that it is eternal, since arhats exist forever. But of course arhats do not cease to exist, since there has never been a self to begin with, so there is nothing to cease.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
They are not attached to rebirth or any form of rebirth which is why they are able to choose.  The only object of abandonment of living beings is contaminated rebirth, not rebirth per se.

Astus wrote:
Rebirth is contaminated, because the root cause is ignorance/three poisons. As long as there is ignorance, there is birth. No ignorance, no birth. This is the basic teaching of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas, also known as dependent origination.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Where do you say they exist?

Astus wrote:
That is the wrong question, as it assumes a self. Please check what the Buddha taught http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html about it.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The Hinayana Arhat's intention is to abide in a place where they can experience uninterrupted solitary peace.

Astus wrote:
The goal of the shravaka path is nirvana, the end of any kind of birth. That is because they recognise that every form of existence, no matter how heavenly, is impermanent, and what is impermanent is suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Can all religions be absorbed into the Buddhism?
Content:
Boomerang said:
The Hindu doctrine is against Buddhadharma, but if we have faith in the sutras, that's only because Hindus aren't aware of what these gods actually believe.

Astus wrote:
The question is whether one believes that a deity is the creator of the world, lives eternally, and faith in said deity can bring oneself perpetual bliss and freedom. If one believes none of those things, then it fits the Buddhist doctrine.

Boomerang said:
But if someone else believes that Jesus understood emptiness, who am I to disagree?

Astus wrote:
It is very much irrelevant whether Jesus understood it or not. The question is whether oneself understands it or not.

Boomerang said:
The thing is, these people are already at my dharma center, so it's not like I can go in there thinking I'm so much smarter than everyone else. That's the type of attitude that sends people to the lower realms, isn't it? What should a dharma teacher do when they meet someone who is inspired by Jesus, and Shakyamuni, and maybe Ramana Maharshi too?

Astus wrote:
Being arrogant is one thing, reinterpreting another person's view is another. One can be aware that there are wrong views and still not make of it a superiority view. But calling a wrong view a correct one is only misleading oneself and others.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
As I said, Arhats CHOOSE to be reborn there.

Astus wrote:
Why would they choose any birth when the whole point of attaining arhatship is to be free from every forms of birth? If they were still attached to having some form of birth, they would be non-returners, who still could not let go of their clinging to the form and formless realms.

Tsongkhapafan said:
For them it is not the form realm of samsara but nirvana because they have abandoned delusion obstructions and so their subjective experience is completely different to Never-Returners.

Astus wrote:
And you base that on what scripture?

Tsongkhapafan said:
This is like a Buddha choosing to emanate in the human realm to teach Dharma; they are not human and do not have human experiences. Even though they appear to abide in the realms of samsara, it is not samsara for them.

Astus wrote:
Buddhas have non-abiding nirvana, furthermore, both buddhas and bodhisattvas have great compassion. Neither of those apply to arhats. So, why would an arhat do that?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Can all religions be absorbed into the Buddhism?
Content:
Boomerang said:
Can we do the same thing with Jesus, Mohammad, Mahavira, maybe even any great philosopher or musician? Could we give them the benefit of the doubt and view them as if they were bodhisattvas teaching a non-Buddhist path for the benefit of beings with little faith? Can we believe that Abrahamic god is a bodhisattva, and Moses was one of his emanations?

Astus wrote:
It is called the path of humans and gods. Those religions and views that teach a somewhat ethical behaviour are recognised to be beneficial to some extent. For instance see Zongmi's discussion of accepting on that basis Taoism and Confucianism in his http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/zongmi.html#a. Note, however, that it does not make those views Buddhist, nor anything conducive to liberation.

Boomerang said:
And viewing world teachers in this manner, could we take refuge in them the same way we take refuge in the traditional sangha of enlightened beings?

Astus wrote:
If one takes refuge in anything else but the Three Gems one is not a Buddhist. That is because taking refuge means upholding something as the ultimate authority and source on the matter of liberation. No god or other being can provide that.

Boomerang said:
Those of us who lack omniscience may never know for sure if these beings were bodhisattvas. But if we choose to be optimistic and view them in this way, is our refuge pure?

Astus wrote:
It does not take omniscence to see if a doctrine accords with the Buddhadharma. As for being optimistic, that sounds rather like confused.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, they are born in the Suddhavasa

Astus wrote:
Those are the non-returners, not the arhats, who take birth there. Arhats have no afflictions to bind them to any birth, otherwise the whole existence of arhats is simply denied.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I understand that they take rebirth in Hinayana Pure Lands.

Astus wrote:
What is that? The pure abodes (suddhavasa) are where non-returners go, but arhats do not and cannot be born anywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 at 5:19 PM
Title: Re: The attainment of the Arhats
Content:
Konchog1 said:
The first clue is that in the Mahayana, Buddhas are described in positive term. They have this body, this mind, this wisdom, this realm, etc.

Astus wrote:
Most of the qualities describing the buddhas are from Hinayana.

Konchog1 said:
In the Hinayana, Arhats are described in negative terms. They are the burned out fire, they are spent etc.

Astus wrote:
There are also positive terms for them.

Konchog1 said:
When fire burns out it doesn't disappear. It returns to the passive state waiting for activation.

Astus wrote:
Are you proposing some sort of eternal fire hiding in a special realm? That is not the meaning of the metaphor, since once the fuel is burnt you cannot light it again.

Konchog1 said:
In the same way, Arhats free of karma are not reborn. They don't disappear, but abide in a passive state waiting for a cause of rebirth. Namely, Bodhicitta. Whereupon they gain all the positive qualities described in the Mahayana.

Astus wrote:
What state is it exactly where they abide? Arhats are free from all the realms of samsara, so they certainly do not wait for any rebirth, as there is no more cause of rebirth for them.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 27th, 2017 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Turning the light around (asraya-paravrtti)
Content:
Astus wrote:
Turning the light to shine back (回光反照) does not really match the conversion of the basis (轉依 āśraya-paravṛtti).

First of all, conversion of the basis is explained in the Mahayanasamgraha as:

"The destruction of defilement by bodhisattvas is their nonabiding cessation. What are its characteristics? It is characterized by a twofold conversion of support whereby they definitively abandon defilement but not transmigration.
Herein transmigration refers to the defiled aspect of the other-dependent pattern. Cessation refers to the purified aspect of the other-dependent pattern. The basic support refers to both these aspects of the purified and defiled other-dependent pattern. The conversion of support means that, when its counteragent arises, the other-dependent pattern forever alters its basic nature as the defiled aspect and forever realizes its purified aspect."
(The Summary of the Great Vehicle, BDK Edition, p 99)

As for turning the light around, in the Linjilu we find:

"The master said, “It is because you cannot stop your mind which runs on seeking everywhere that a patriarch said, ‘Bah, superior men! Searching for your heads with your heads!’ When at these words you turn your own light in upon yourselves and never seek elsewhere, then you’ll know that your body and mind are not different from those of the patriarch-buddhas and on the instant have nothing to do—this is called ‘obtaining the dharma.’"
(Record of Linji, p 28, tr Sasaki)

And as for the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, it uses a another word (歸) and is between the two previous views:

為離念歸於真如，以念一切法令心生滅不入實智故。 ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T32n1666_001#0580b08 )
"be free from their deluded thoughts and can return to Suchness; for if anyone thinks of anything [as real and absolute in its own right], he causes his mind to be [trapped] in samsara and consequently he cannot enter [the state filled with] true insight [i.e., enlightenment]."
(AFM, p 78, tr Hakeda)

若人修行一切善法，自然歸順真如法故。 ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T32n1666_001#0580c12 )
"If a man practices all kinds of good deeds, he will naturally return to the principle of Suchness."
(AFM, p 81, tr Hakeda)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Well, that's what I'm wrestling with! This is why I am having the problem with nihilist interpretations.

Astus wrote:
It's still unclear what you call a nihilist interpretation. Neither conventional reality, nor dependent origination is denied. In fact, the only thing denied is an independent, self-sustaining permanent existence.

Wayfarer said:
I don't believe that 'anatta' means 'there is no self'. It means 'nothing is self'.

Astus wrote:
What is the difference? If nothing is a unicorn, there is no unicorn.

Wayfarer said:
'Emptiness' doesn't mean 'nothing exists'. It means everything exists contigently, or dependently.

Astus wrote:
There is no disagreement on that.

Wayfarer said:
But emptiness is not non-existence. Emptiness means, things (and self)  neither exist, nor don't exist.

Astus wrote:
That sounds problematic. Emptiness, as a realisation, is none of the four propositions, because it is non-conceptual, and non-conceptual means not grasping, not identifying with any view as ultimate.

Wayfarer said:
If we deny the reality of self, samsara, Nirvāṇa, and appearances, then nothing is real, which is what 'nihilism' means -  'nihil' means 'nothing'.  It is the opposite problem to 'eternalism'.

Astus wrote:
The two extreme views are eternalism (śaśvatavāda) and annihilationism (ucchedavāda). Eternalism stands for the view that something persists from one moment to another. Annihilationism stands for the view that something ceases to exist from one moment to another. The middle way is the teaching of dependent origination, where apparent phenomena lack substance. So, as above, nobody says that there is nothing, hence it is unclear what you call nihilism.

Wayfarer said:
As for 'all attachments being eliminated', that is not just a verbal formulation but an existential reality.

Astus wrote:
So it is.

Wayfarer said:
I have a mortgage, a dog, a wife, house, bills to pay, attachments aplenty.  I would imagine that eliminating such attachments would constitute renunciation of those attachments.

Astus wrote:
Attachments are not in the object. And this is where the teaching of the unity of samsara and nirvana becomes a very practical matter.

Wayfarer said:
Now as for myself, I know that I don't perceive from that perspective.

Astus wrote:
You display right there an essential quality of the good practitioner: the honest, straightforward mind.

Wayfarer said:
My stage on the path is 'student' or 'hearer'. Maybe the Mahāyāna path is not for me! But I have to believe that there is a path.

Astus wrote:
There is always a path, it is what all the teachings are. Having doubts, difficulties, etc. is very much part of the path. Mahayana is not about being compassionate and wise, but about aspiring for those qualities.

Wayfarer said:
(Also, I wonder if there is a tendency to assume such a perspective, without necessarily having realised it in practice. Not for one minute that Ven Thubten Chodron would ever do such a thing.)
That's why the straightforward mind, introspection (meditation, mindfulness, reflection), and Dharma education are important, so that we don't mislead ourselves.
a defence of the reality of Nibbana

Astus wrote:
It is the third noble truth, the very goal of the path, the ultimate truth. How could it not be accepted as real? The question is not whether there is or is not nirvana, but the definition of it.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
to say there is 'no Nirvāṇa or samsara'  seems to reject the whole basis of the path. Surely the path is no longer needed by those who have crossed it, but just as surely that doesn't apply to most of us.

Astus wrote:
Do you also object to saying that there is no self? Because it is really the same. It could be reasoned that since there is no self, there is nobody to attain anything, so there is no path. However, the teaching of no self is meant to be learnt, understood, and realised, and that is how one can actually walk the path.

"‘Buddha,’ Bodhisattva,’ ‘perfect wisdom,’ all these are mere words. And what they denote is something uncreated. It is as with the self. Although we speak of a ‘self,’ yet absolutely the self is something uncreated. Since therefore all dharmas are without ownbeing, what is that form, etc., which cannot be seized, and which is something uncreated? Thus the fact that all dharmas are without own-being is the same as the fact that they are uncreated."
(Astasahasrika 1.6, tr Conze)

Wayfarer said:
I think 'the uncompounded' or 'unfabricated' signifies a reality.  When it is said 'there is an unborn, an unconditioned, were there no unborn, there would be no escape from the born, the conditoned' - I take this to be a true statement. Do you think it's not a true statement?

Astus wrote:
Uncompounded means emptiness, the absence of essence, the absence of self. Realising no self is how nirvana is attained, because that is when all attachments are eliminated. And as it is taught everywhere, all dharmas are without self, there has never been a self ever. This absence of self is not something beyond appearances, but appearances themselves are without a self. To propose that there are compounded appearances on one side and uncompounded emptiness on the other side, as if they were two separate realities, is tantamount to saying that compounded objects are self.

Wayfarer said:
What progress is required, if we are already arrived?

Astus wrote:
Has anything ever been permanent? No, things are already impermanent as they are. That doesn't mean one does not need to learn, understand, and realise impermanence.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
your other statements might be interpreted to mean that 'ultimately there is no Nirvāṇa'

Astus wrote:
There is no nirvana, nor samsara. But, as Dushun begins his discussion of the Flower Ornament Meditation:

"So first it is necessary to strike down conceptual attachments; only then can you enter complete illumination. If anyone sees immediately that all things, like material form, come from conditions, this is at once the conditional origination of the universe-it is no longer necessary to use the preceding techniques. But those who are not able to enter this stage directly should start from the beginning and proceed to the end, questioning everything one by one, to bring about the cessation of confusion and the end of delusion, to eliminate things, cut off words, see the essential nature, and bring about understanding-only then can this be considered getting the meaning."
(Entry Into the Inconceivable, p 62)

It is the goal of every Buddhist school to provide a path to liberation, and that path has various stages. And it can be difficult for a while to see how the teachings on emptiness and no-self can be anything but nihilistic. So the Astasahasrika (tr Conze) says:

"A Bodhisattva who does not become afraid when this deep and perfect wisdom is being taught should be recognized as not lacking in perfect wisdom, as standing at the irreversible stage of Bodhisattva, standing firmly, in consequence of not taking his stand anywhere."
(1.2)

and

"The Bodhisattvas who have newly set out in the vehicle should beware of being afraid when they have heard this exposition."
(6.3)

And the http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html:

"You should know that if someone hears the teaching of this scripture and is neither shocked, afraid, or alarmed, this person is extremely rare."
(ch 14)

Wayfarer said:
But, in the absence of that non-dual perspective, declaring that Nirvāṇa and samsara are the same, results in a flattening or collapse of the perspective. It amounts to saying that the ordinary state is the only state there is. That is why I had been told it amounts to 'discarding the ladder before it's been climbed'.

Astus wrote:
One learns the non-dual perspective through contemplating the inseparability of samsara and nirvana. After all, even "non-duality" is still a conventional concept. And you are right in saying that grasping at the idea of aimlessness incorrectly is detrimental to one's progress. But that shouldn't stop one to grasp it correctly.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Wayfarer is wary of nihilist readings of Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
What readings are those exactly? As I see it, saying that "appearances are empty" is the most positive message ever. That is because it eliminates the duality of conventional and ultimate reality. As long as an ultimate is proposed separately from appearances, one maintains an alienated approach that tries to get rid of everything except one, and that is indeed nihilistic.

Wayfarer said:
I read here on this forum, the saying that 'Samsara has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has no end, but it has a beginning'.
Is that an authentic saying?

Astus wrote:
Yes, in the sense that a being is bound to samsara (no beginning) until liberation is attained (end), and once one is free (beginning) one stays free indefinitely (no end). That is similar to someone who has no children, so the person's ancestors go back in time indefinitely, but once the person is dead there is no more continuation of the lineage any more.
No, in the sense that "The realm of sentient beings is the dharma body; the dharma body is the realm of sentient beings." ( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html ), that is, nirvana and samsara are not two different things, all appearances are originally unborn.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But there is 'the unconditioned, the unbornd, the unmade', which doesn't arise and cease. ...  the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo)

Astus wrote:
It is the extinction of the three poisons that is called the unconditioned. It is not a new state or being, but simply the end of attachment. However, this ending, this absence is no different from other kinds of absences in being unconditioned, hence cessation without analysis (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is counted among unconditioned dharmas.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I don't think the heartwood is 'a self', but it is 'that which is not subject to arising and ceasing'.

Astus wrote:
Is there such a thing that does not arise and cease?

Wayfarer said:
Phenomena are dependently-arisen, but dependently arisen is not the same as non-existent. That I take to be the 'middle way'.

Astus wrote:
Nobody said that dependent origination is non-existent. Dependent origination is exactly what phenomena arising and ceasing means. In other words, there is no unchanging element anywhere.

Wayfarer said:
What does 'it' refer to?

Astus wrote:
It refers to mind. And mind is dependently originated.

Wayfarer said:
It is not self, but it is also not nothing. No thing =/= nothing.

Astus wrote:
Again, there are the aggregates, there are the six sensory realms, and they are dependently originated. It is not nothing, and nobody said that it is. And just like a banana tree, the aggregates are without a core, without anything independent.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I don't read it that way, I read it as: 'don't search for what is of value where it's not to be found'. Don't search for the heartwood of a banana tree, as there isn't any. But doesn't mean there isn't heartwood.

Astus wrote:
And where is that heartwood, where is that self, if not in the five aggregates and six sensory realms?

Wayfarer said:
There are negative and positive approaches to Nirvāṇa, and the negative approach is preponderant in many scriptures. But there also are positive descriptions of Nirvāṇa as blissful, at peace, released.  But that is not to assert a 'solid inner self behind all experiences', which was the idea of 'eternalism', but what is beyond existence and non-existence.

Astus wrote:
Nirvana means the extinction of craving, the extinction of attachment. One can rightly call it the ultimate peace and happiness. But as long as one conceives that there is a self somewhere, or that there is a special realm of nirvana, craving and attachment remains.

Wayfarer said:
As the Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra states: It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

Astus wrote:
That is nothing other than "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", that is, the aggregates appear (existent) without self (non-existent). To give a comparison, in Buddhism there are the five aggregates and there is no core, no self to find anywhere, while in Vedanta there are the five sheaths and beyond them there is a self to be found.
As for the Mahamudra view, it does not teach anything different from what is taught in Madhyamaka. And especially it does not teach anything like Vedanta that assumes a core, a self.

Here is Chokyi Nyima's commentary to clarify:

All phenomena are the illusory display of mind.
Mind is devoid of 'mind' - empty of any entity.
Empty and yet unceasing, it manifests as anything whatsoever.

The view is that the essence of mind is empty. What we usually call 'mind' is that which thinks, feels and conceives all different kinds of ideas about everything. In the second line, devoid of mind means that mind is without concreteness; no shape, color or material substance can be found. Saying that the essence of mind is empty means that it cannot be established as existent. However, it is not blank nothingness like space. While empty in essence, it still manifests unceasingly and unobstructedly in multifarious ways.
(Song of Karmapa, p 58)

It is not existent since even the victorious ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent since it is the basis of samsara and nirvana.

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.
Usually we perceive our world as very real and concrete, full of mountains and houses and roads. Our habit of holding on in this way makes the world seem very solid. But if we closely examine our perceptions, we find that experience occurs, yet it is devoid of any selfentity. In other words, the mind is beyond the extremes of both existence and nonexistence.
...
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.
(p 65-66)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
What do you think the import of 'heartwood' is? Why is it part of the analogy?

Astus wrote:
It represents the assumption of a real, solid, inner self that is behind all experiences.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
To extend the analogy - it's not that there is no heartwood, but that it's not to be found in the six sense spheres, any more than heartwood is to be found in a banana tree.

Astus wrote:
That is an incorrect extension on the analogy. It assumes that there is a seventh sense, but there is no such thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
It takes 10 seconds to understand the logic behind not getting caught in preferring this vs. that. It takes years, decades, lives to live this understanding.

Astus wrote:
Fortunately there is a path to do that.

As for how attachment is the problem: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.191.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.115.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Kills it! Exactly what I was looking for.

Astus wrote:
There are quite a few teachings like that from the Buddha, as it's a standard description of the 18 dhatus.
Look at this one too: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.193.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Quickie on the nature of "I"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Awareness of an experience (i.e. knowing subjectively the "experience" of the experience) rises and falls co-dependently with the experience itself?

Astus wrote:
This answers the question: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.093.than.html

Consciousness and its object are mutually dependent, hence the six types of consciousnesses in Buddhism. Also, when there is nothing that one is conscious of, that is the absence of consciousness, and if that were called consciousness, then unconsciousness is consciousness.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
It pretty much always comes down to attachment (grasping/aversion) doesn't it?

Astus wrote:
"The Supreme Way is difficult
Only for those who pick and choose.
Simply let go of love and hate;
The Way will fully reveal itself."
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=57 )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2017 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
The difference is that I, via memory and thought, connect these discontinuous ephemeral objects into a continuous persistent story — I, the world, the flow of time, the process — that I take to be the true nature of reality, whereas the enlightened person doesn't.

Astus wrote:
The difference is in identification, in attachment. If an enlightened person could not comprehend processes that would mean he'd be unable to function as a living being. The contemplation of rise and fall and of momentariness are meant to eliminate the false assumptions of permanence.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2017 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: "I am God" sentiments and Sambhogakāya
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
No, I am asking if there is precedent in Buddhavacana or oral teachings that an ascetic of high attainment can mistake his own Buddha-nature, or more particularly his latent sambhogakāya, for divinity, and proclaim that his is "God/Brahma", out of delusion.

Astus wrote:
In a sense everyone mistakes buddha-nature for one's self, because the nature of mind is buddha-nature. But as long as one's view of the mind is mistaken, it is not seeing the buddha-nature, but seeing a self. So the sixth song of the http://keithdowman.net/books/flight-of-the-garuda.html says:

"Mind", this universal concept, this most significant of words, being no single entity, manifests as the gamut of pleasure and pain in samsara and nirvana. There are as many beliefs about it as there are approaches to Buddhahood. It has innumerable synonyms.
In the vernacular it is "I"; some Hindus call it "the Self"; the Disciples say "self-less individual"; the followers of Mind-only call it simply "mind"; some call it "perfect insight"; some call it "Buddha-nature"; some call it "the Magnificent Stance" (Mahamudra); some call it "the Middle Way"; some call it "the cosmic seed"; some call it "the reality-continuum"; some call it "the universal ground"; some call it "ordinary consciousness". Since the synonyms of "mind", the labels we apply to it, are countless, know it for what it really is.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2017 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: "I am God" sentiments and Sambhogakāya
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
And I am wondering if such an incomplete/lacking realization, as per DN1, or at least my understanding thereof, can be conducive to "Brahma-delusions".

Astus wrote:
Are you asking if believing oneself to be some sort of deity can result in a birth as that deity? Then the answer is likely that belief in itself is insufficient, one needs more than faith to establish the relevant causes (e.g. the four immeasurables, aka. brahma-viharas).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2017 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: "I am God" sentiments and Sambhogakāya
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
I am assuming an incomplete and imperfect revelation of Buddha-nature, as per DN 1

Astus wrote:
That is not a revelation of buddha-nature, but the delusion of Brahma. Not only outsiders and ordinary beings do not see anything of buddha-nature, but even sravakas and beginner bodhisattvas have nothing to do with it. See what the Nirvana Sutra (tr Yamamoto) says on the matter:

"O good man! Such Bodhisattvas may well reach the stage of the ten soils, and yet they cannot clearly see the Buddha-Nature. How could sravakas and pratyekabuddhas well see [it]?"
(ch 12, p 110)

"O good man! If a Bodhisattva abides in the ninth soil, he sees that a thing has a nature. Because of this view of the world, he does not see the Buddha-Nature. If the Buddha-Nature is seen, there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing. When he practises this samadhi of the All-Void, he does not see any nature in all things. As he does not see this, he sees the Buddha-Nature."
(ch 32, p 361)

"All beings journey along with the 12 links of interdependence, which they do not see or know. Not seeing or knowing, there is no ending and no beginning. The Bodhisattvas of the stage of the ten abodes see only the end, but they do not see the beginning. The All-Buddha-World-Honoured One sees the beginning and the end. Thus do all Buddhas clearly see the Buddha-Nature. 
O good man! All beings are unable to see the 12 links of interdependence. Therefore, they ride on the wheel of transmigration. O good man! Just as the silkworm makes a cocoon, gains birth, and dies by itself, so do things proceed with all beings. As they do not see the Buddha-Nature, they generate karma out of defilement and repeat births and deaths, just as a person bounces a ball. O good man! That is why I say in the sutra: "One who sees the 12 links of interdependence sees Dharma; one who sees Dharma sees the Buddha. “The Buddha is none other than the Buddha-Nature.” “Why so? Because all Buddhas make this their own nature."
(ch 33, p 369)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2017 at 6:16 PM
Title: Re: "I am God" sentiments and Sambhogakāya
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Is it possible that certain ascetics and spiritualists ... are able to perceive a portion of their Buddha-nature

Astus wrote:
No. This is a misinterpretation of what buddha-nature is, thinking of it as if it were some sort of state, entity, or soul.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2017 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Shinran Shonin: "There is no Buddha apart from the mind."
Content:
Dharma Flower said:
So far on this forum, I've quoted Shinran and commentators of his work in saying that Amida is the primordial Buddha in the work of Shinran. At this point, would it help if I quoted the Monshu himself?

Astus wrote:
If Amida is the primordial buddha in the works of Shinran, please prove that by a few quotes from the works of Shinran himself.

Dharma Flower said:
Even if Shinran himself doesn't use the term "primordial Buddha," the article from Alfred Bloom that I've quoted above proves everything I've been saying regarding Amida being the Eternal Buddha in Shinran's writings.

Astus wrote:
It does not prove that Shinran taught that, it only shows that there is at least one person who interprets it that way. That is a big difference.

But to give an orthodox answer on the matter, here is what the http://www.nembutsu.info/standard/amida.htm has to say on the matter:

"Amida Buddha is a Sambhogakaya; he established forty-eight vows and by his practice, brought them to consummation, and attained Buddhahood."

"Dharmakaya absolutely transcends space and time. It cannot be grasped through man's senses; it exists beyond human conception, words, and intellection. Religion, however, requires something closer to humanity; something more concrete. And that concrete manifestation is the Sambhogakaya known as Amida Buddha in Shinshu."

Dharma Flower said:
I don't expect non-Shinshu Buddhists to agree with the teachings of Shinran or to convert away from their school or sect.

Astus wrote:
Shinran's teaching is very simple and straightforward, not complicated at all: if one has faith, one attains birth. The only arguable matter in that for other Mahayana followers is whether faith is sufficient for that or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: if we are Buddhas are we the 3 Kayas
Content:
Minobu said:
if we are all Buddhas...can i communicate with my Sambhogokaya Body ?

Astus wrote:
I think the meaning of sambhogakaya is somewhat unclear in that question. Sambhoga means enjoyment, it is the resultant pleasure of the infinite merits accumulated over the bodhisattva path, and it is the form of a buddha that appears for bodhisattvas only, that is, how buddhas are encountered in meditation. As for the other meaning, as the awareness quality of the nature of mind, it is present in every being, so if you want to communicate with it, you can do that the moment you stop pursuing concepts.

Minobu said:
but if we are the Buddha ,Buddha sees us to be...

Astus wrote:
An ordinary object can be seen in many ways by different people, or even by one person. And just because one sees an orange as tasty, it doesn't mean that another sees the same way. A buddha sees beings as buddhas, but beings see a buddha as a being.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: if we are Buddhas are we the 3 Kayas
Content:
DGA said:
I'm reminded of the parable of the herbs in the Lotus Sutra, where Buddha Shakyamuni explains that he is always guiding beings to Buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
Supposing that there is such a guidance makes no difference, as it's still up to each person to cultivate the way. In other words, a defiled mind sees only a defiled world.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: zen is hard or easy, for a lot or few ?
Content:
mansurhirbi87 said:
1 - What means : "The mind of the Patriarchs is in every blade of grass!" in you first quotation ?

Astus wrote:
The truth is ubiquitous, all appearances are already such.

mansurhirbi87 said:
2- be diligent would be a condition to not suffer in the eons to come ? Did i get correctly your second quotation ?

Astus wrote:
Yes. If one is diligent now and gains insight, then the cause of future suffering is removed.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: if we are Buddhas are we the 3 Kayas
Content:
Minobu said:
but is it possible if we are Buddhas our Sambhogakaya body could be guiding us.
guiding us....using the Dharma kaya body to aid in Samsara to put things in our path ...thoughts, and such...maybe a new teacher...maybe finding a site online from which to learn from...We are not Nirmana kaya obvioulsy but if Buddhas see only Buddhas what are they seeing in this Samsaric realm.

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is what guides beings, that's how they're stuck in samsara. This is what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas of dependent origination show us. There is no outer force or entity that can manipulate a being's karma. Accepting such an external influence nullifies the meaning of karma and the path of liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: zen is hard or easy, for a lot or few ?
Content:
mansurhirbi87 said:
i guess i should be more precise : do you think is it the best way for everybody. it look likes to me that it's hard and for few people

Astus wrote:
Few people care hard enough to bother to comprehend the very simple teaching of Zen. So the rest remain confused.

The closing paragraph of Huangbo's Essentials of the Transmission of Mind (from Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 42):

Make effort! Make effort! Of the thousand or ten thousand people in this school, only three or five [have really understood Buddhism]. If you do not take this seriously then you will suffer for it eventually (lit., “there will be a day when you experience a calamity”). Therefore it is said, “Be diligent in taking care of this life, and how could you suffer misfortune in eons to come?”


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2017 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: zen is hard or easy, for a lot or few ?
Content:
Astus wrote:
One day, while  the  Layman was meditating  in his sitting hut, he suddenly cried out,  “It s hard, hard, hard! And I've put ten coats of linseed oil on this platform, too!”
His  wife said, “Its  easy,  easy,  easy! Just turn your  eyes to the floor, lower your feet to it, and be on your way!“ 
Ling-chao said,  “It's neither  hard  nor  easy! The mind of the Patriarchs is in every blade of grass!“
(The Sayings of Layman P'ang, p 113, tr James Green)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2017 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: What are the Difference between Arhats, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas?
Content:
thecowisflying said:
How so?

Astus wrote:
In brief, the buddha-bodies and abilities are identified with the nature of mind, thus no need for all the magical displays normally attributed to buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2017 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: What are the Difference between Arhats, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas?
Content:
kirtu said:
Southern School practitioners do however see Arhatship and Praetyakabuddhahood as full buddhhood.

Astus wrote:
Theravada maintains the difference between arhatship and buddhahood in terms of abilities. While Mahayana also agrees that arhats are free from samsara, just like buddhas.

It is more interesting to consider that with the teaching of buddhahood in this life, the difference between arhats and buddhas practically disappears.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2017 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: The doctrine of no-self - teaching device or metaphysical truth?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The teaching of no-self is that of the explicit (nitartha) and ultimate truth (paramarthasatya). So, in terms of teachings, it could not really be clearer that it is a truth of the highest category. At the same time, the reason some might be reluctant to be too affirmative, is because even the correct view, when grasped at, is a hindrance.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2017 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
Wayfarer said:
the notion that 'awakening is a temporary experience' doesn't actually square with the  teachings in some important respects

Astus wrote:
In what respects? Awakening happens as a result of the path, and it happens only once.

Wayfarer said:
'Come to the end of craving' is nowhere described in terms of 'a temporary experience'.

Astus wrote:
It can only end once, not any more. That is quite temporary.

Wayfarer said:
How is that different from naturalism or positivism? And where does 'the unborn, the uncreated, the unfabricated' stand in relation to phenomenal domain?

Astus wrote:
Appearances themselves are unborn, uncreated, unfabricated.

"Observing all things
To be without inherent existence,
Whatever their appearances of origin and disappearance,
Being just provisional descriptions ,
All things are unborn,
All things are imperishable:
To one who can understand this
The Buddha will always be manifest.
The nature of things is fundamentally empty and null,
With no grasping and no vision.
The emptiness of inherent nature is Buddha;
It cannot be assessed in thought.
If one knows the inherent nature
Of all things is like this,
This person will not be affected
By any afflictions .
Ordinary people seeing things
Just pursue the forms
And don't realize things are formless:
Because of this they don't see Buddha."
(Flower Ornament Scripture, ch 14, p 373)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2017 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Astus, what does this mean: "Just this alone is real abiding." ?

Astus wrote:
Preceding the previously quoted section:

Q: Where does the mind dwell in its real abode? 
A: Dwelling nowhere is its real abode.
Q: What is dwelling nowhere? 
A: It is the mind not dwelling anywhere or on anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2017 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Is there no solace in Buddhism ... no "happily ever after" ... not even any ground on which to firmly plant your feet?

Astus wrote:
Abiding in any appearance is samsara.

"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."
( http://ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
this "No-one no-thing is ultimately behind the curtain" view might just turn my cozy little world completely upside down.

Astus wrote:
"Illusion-like are all dharmas,
Yet the illusion itself cannot be found."
( http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-047-002/translation


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza and Mahamudra
Content:
Matylda said:
In the past it was done for political reasons as we see the history of Buddhist religious institutions in different countries.. there was much to gain.. power and property. But today it is rather an expression of emotional confusion, it does not reflect understanding dharma...
All, zen, mahamudra, dzogchen, tantra, theravada serve peole seeking liberation.. we should respect them highly, and give no ear to any criticism...


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Hasn't it been argued that by refusing to answer the famed 10/14 metaphysical questions, Buddha was either hiding part of the truth or shutting the door to open inquiry into it ... presumably for soteriological reasons?

Astus wrote:
You might want to read some teachings from the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn44 where it becomes clear that they are undeclared basically because they are question based on false premises, and such premises are refuted through the teachings of no-self and dependent origination.

In the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html the Buddha says that he did not teach everything he knows, because he taught only what is conducive to liberation. However, it should not be misinterpreted, as if metaphysics had somehow been excluded, but one should consider all sorts of knowledge here, like agriculture, military, arts, literature, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Because the doctrine serves the singleminded goal of ending suffering, and going into that which might or might not lie beyond phenomena was thought by the Buddha to work against this goal.

Astus wrote:
Not exactly. Although it is true that one should not lose sight of the goal, it doesn't mean that there is some general aversion towards philosophical questions. In fact, one could say that Buddhism represents the highest philosophy, according to Buddhists of course.

rachmiel said:
if what you're after is "the truth" ... consequences be damned! ... Buddhist doctrine will only take you so far.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is the truth, the Dharma.

rachmiel said:
Are there Buddhist philosophers who have explored the realm of that which might lie beyond phenomena/experience? If so, are they seen as rebellious upstart delusional hippie kooks by traditional Buddhists?

Astus wrote:
Buddhists debated with almost everyone else all over Asia, so they did argue against such ideas like the creator, the ultimate self, the ultimate matter, fate, etc. In other words, those who assume to know something beyond phenomena are simply wrong, mistaken, and deluded.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 7:23 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I generally agree with you, and was going to make a similar point, but I'm a bit hesitant about 'nothing else beyond experience'.  I would like to think Buddhist terms such as dharmadhatu and dharmakaya denote a higher reality and not simply the 'absence of experience'; not something phenomenal, but also not nothing.

Astus wrote:
A valid issue, since normally nirvana is considered a different category, an uncompounded dharma. The reason I say that there is only experience is twofold. On the one hand, awakening is a temporary experience. On the other, there is no emptiness, no dharmadhatu, no nirvana separate from experiences, since it is the nature of experiences. Positing any reality outside of the realm of experiences means that it cannot be experienced, nor can ever be known or used, consequently it is nothing more than an irrelevant and baseless assumption.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 6:20 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Afaiu this is pretty much what Kant said about phenomena (experience) and noumena (real things). Any talk of noumena is purely speculative. For all we know noumena (if they exist) are in themselves so utterly alien to our sensorium and brains that our wildest imaginations don't come anywhere near close to being able to "envision" them. And, as Magister Ludi said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." I guess I'm prone to not taking his advice!

Astus wrote:
However, there is a very important difference here between the philosophies of Kant (and Husserl), and Buddhism. The reason Buddhism focuses on personal experience in the form of the five aggregates and six sensory areas, or simply consciousness, is because that's where attachments occur, that's where the views of I and my occur, and that's where suffering occurs. It is not a question about "what is real?", it is the question about "how to attain liberation from suffering?". In Buddhist doctrine there is nothing else beyond experience, there are no noumena, only phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
If I drop a glass, and it falls ... am I merely imagining a faux-process of a glass falling? Or am I experiencing a real process as "filtered" through my visual system?

Astus wrote:
Let's analyse this a bit. "If I drop a glass"

if - that is already hypothetical, so it's clearly imagined
I - there is no substantial self to be found, so it is imagined
drop - without a self there can be no agent, and without an agent there can be no action, so it is imagined
a - no singular entity can be identified, so it is imagined
glass - what is called a glass is an assembly of components, but when the components are analysed as well, there is nothing substantial found, so it is imagined

If your question is whether there are real things beyond one's experience or not, that is a question based on an unfounded idea, since it is impossible to relate to anything that is not experienced.

If your question is whether time/process is made of distinct moments or not, then since neither past nor future exists, and the present cannot be identified as anything whatsoever, neither processes nor moments can really exist.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
the extent to which the process of me that I feel is so real is or is not actually real.

Astus wrote:
Whatever one feels is a feeling, a thought. Both feelings and thoughts are impermanent. One moment it's there, in the next moment one is thinking about breakfast. But what can keep one circling about an idea is this assumption that it is meaningful, it is real, it is important. And this superimposition of existence is the ignorance that results in dissatisfaction. Like in this case of searching for certainty.

rachmiel said:
Do I exist in relation to what has come before and is likely to come after? Am I a slice of a continuous process, evolution? Or am I just this, then this, then this, this, this, this ... and the continuous process I feel just the product of a perfervid imagination connecting dots that are, in actuality, not connected?

Astus wrote:
Even the dot of the present moment is a product of imagination, how much more a whole line connecting millions of illusory dots.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Retroactivity of Awakening
Content:
Astus wrote:
Two basic terms would need to be clarified first: what is awakening and what one is awakened to. And the simplest answer seems to be that awakening is the removal of defilements and one is awakened to emptiness. Then the solution to the original question is that there is a point in time when defilements are removed, while the truth of emptiness is valid at any time.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: Shikantaza and Mahamudra
Content:
passel said:
I have a strong hunch Kobun Chino practiced some mahamudra, and in China, Garma Chang, CM Chen, Nan-Huai Chin and Yin Shi Zi all did at least a bit. Sheng yen also seems to have had some exposure to it and refers to it a little in his books.

Astus wrote:
John Crook, a disciple of Sheng-yen, did practise and teach Mahamudra. Anzan Hoshin of the WWZC has also published a Mahamudra manual. On the other side, Ken McLeod implemented some Zen teachings into his courses.

passel said:
One real tangible benefit of mahamudra is that it preserves a whole body of very practical, explicit instruction that is hard to come by in western zen contexts. It absolutely exists in non western zen, but it gets lost in translation.

Astus wrote:
Do you have examples? It seems to me Zen - not just Soto - is intentionally without gradual instructions, although this is apparently not understood by many nowadays. One can actually find a good amount of them in the works of Zhiyi and others. It is no accident that one of the first zazen manuals (that was eventually used by Dogen to compose his own) refers one to other works: "as it is explained in the Śūraṃgama-sūtra, in the Tiantai Practice of Śamatha and Vipaśyanā (Tiantai zhiguanfamen) by Zhiyi (538–597), and in the Manual of Practice and Realization (Xiuzhengyi) by Guifeng (Zongmi, 780–841)." (Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations, BDK ed, p 257)

passel said:
The mahamudra instructions can really give you something to work with on a sesshin, though, that zen instructions may not.

Astus wrote:
It sounds somewhat misguided to go to a Soto sesshin and try to use Mahamudra teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 5th, 2017 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Tibetan and Zen Buddhism other than Vajrayana practices?
Content:
hyperpuppy said:
So with these different doctrines making it to different cultures, what would you say are the biggest differences that came out of that that make Tibetan sutrayana significantly different from East Asian teachings?

Astus wrote:
Tibetans focus more on treatises, where the basis are Indian works further explained by Tibetan commentators. E.g. the Chariot of the Dakpo Kagyu Siddhas is the VIII Karmapa commentary on the Madhyamakavatara (part of it translated as http://www.shambhala.com/the-moon-of-wisdom-2693.html, and a summary by the IX Karmapa as http://www.shambhala.com/the-karmapa-s-middle-way.html ). Because of taking Vajrayana as the direct and practical way, it is a common view that sutrayana studies are only a theoretical matter.

East Asian Buddhism focuses more on the sutras and use treatises of East Asian origin. For instance, one of the primary sources of Prajnaparamita study in Korean Buddhism is the http://www.acmuller.net/articles/ogahae-oxford.html that contains five commentaries on the Diamond Sutra (by Zongmi, Huineng, Fu Dashi, Yefu Daochuan, and Yuzhang Zongjing) collected and commented on by Gihwa. Reading, reciting, copying, memorising, and contemplating sutras are important and common practices that not only generate merit but also wisdom.

So, the differences between the two are not only exegetical but also substantial. That is, different scriptures studied in different ways.

hyperpuppy said:
When it comes to meditation, I seem to do better focusing on a leaf or doing loving-kindness meditation (Tibetan center) than watching my breath (Korean temple).

Astus wrote:
You can use other objects of meditation in Korean Buddhism as well.

hyperpuppy said:
I do find some of the more mystical-sounding aspects of the Tibetan beliefs difficult. I'm willing to admit that I don't know everything, and willing to be convinced, but at this point I do find some of it pretty difficult to believe.

Astus wrote:
May not have encountered them yet, but East Asian Buddhism has practically as many "mystical-sounding aspects" as Tibetan Buddhism.

hyperpuppy said:
I like the more structured nature of the Tibetan training.

Astus wrote:
That can be an important element, since structured education is usually restricted to Buddhist universities in East Asia (see e.g. http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=0010&wr_id=154&page=35, although for instance http://www.kwanumzen.org/wp-content/uploads/DT-Training-Guide1.pdf are supposed to be familiar with a number of basic teachings, I don't know if there is actually any form of training there for them.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2017 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
Wayfarer said:
However, dharmas are the elements or constituents of experience, are they not? That is the sense in which they are different from atoms as conceived by materialists, because atoms are constituents of objects.

Astus wrote:
Yes, dharmas are the elements (or rather categories) of experience, but there are other things (the formations disjunct from mind, i.e. citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra  心不相應行) called dharmas as well, for instance the "sentence/phrase" (padakāya 句身) is a dharma in the Sautrantika and the Yogacara systems, just as "speed/swiftness" (jāva 勢速) and "acquirement/obtainment" (prāpti 得).


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2017 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Malcolm said:
Even the afflictions of the mind are naturally pure.

Astus wrote:
"The mind, Mañjuśrī, is empty of a self and what belongs to a self; such is its nature. This is called peace. Thoroughly understanding that the mind is empty, one does not run toward dharmas. Thus it is called utter peace.
Awakening, Mañjuśrī, is by nature luminous, because the mind is by nature luminous; that is why it is said to be luminous by nature. The nature is not afflicted; it is the same as space, it has the nature of space, it goes together with space, it is comparable to space. The nature is utterly luminous."
( http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-047-002/translation )

"Where one takes notice, there is defilement, so it has been revealed;
The non-apprehension of I and Mine has been called purification.
But there is herein no one who is defiled or who is cleansed.
Then the Bodhisattva has understood the perfection of wisdom."
(RGSG 22.7, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Does *any* process exist independently of mind? Or are all processes -- entities that exist over a period of time rather than in the present moment -- products of human memory/thought connecting dots that aren't connected independently of mind?

I guess this gets into the notion of continuity: Is anything continuous? Does anything flow? Or is continuity/flow an attribute mind *adds* to actuality? Is reality like a movie: discontinuous frames that appear to run together: this this this this this this? If it is always nothing other than one endless this (now) ... then how can anything actually change, evolve, grow, decay independently of a mind that is imputing these qualities to it?

Astus wrote:
It is good to know a bit of https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abhidharma/ first of all, as that defines a number of basic elements of Buddhist teachings. The two relevant concepts here are dharma and moment (kshana). Dharmas are what everything is made of, that is, the seeming reality are all the things and events, while the true reality is only dharmas. One of the elements of the seeming reality is permanence, where something appears to endure for consecutive moments. Therefore, the existence of continuity, of processes, is acceptable only as a worldly view, a mistaken perception of deluded beings. And when we get to Madhyamaka, even the momentary coming and going of dharmas is considered illusory.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2017 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
Have you read the Lotus Sutra? The first prediction is Sariputra. Then the rest of the Arhat assembly. Monks, nuns, then Devadatta, the Dragon King's Daughter...

Astus wrote:
And that's how that prediction is in conflict with how prediction of buddhahood is taught elsewhere. If the message is that no matter what, everyone will definitely become a buddha, then that is a view contradicting the meaning of the teaching itself. If it is simply the affirmation that there is the possibility of becoming a buddha, then it is not really a prediction. So, it is more likely just another confirmation of the one vehicle model where sravakas will switch to the bodhisattva path. But that does not mean that everyone possesses a buddha-nature, nor that all beings will necessarily attain buddhahood.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2017 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
1. The prediction does matter... because its actually one of the steps to becoming a Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is something that happens for bodhisattvas on the 8th bhumi, not before.

"If one attains deep acceptance of the nonorigination of things,
One will receive the Buddhas' prediction of enlightenment."
(Avatamsaka Sutra, ch 12, p 335, tr Cleary)

Once one gains this patience,
One immediately receives the prediction:
“You will definitely become a buddha.”
It is then that one achieves “irreversibility.”
(Nagarjuna: http://www.kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/Bsam-Vas_excerpts/Bsam-vas_X-102_X-06.pdf, v 31)

Queequeg said:
This is a declaration that arhats have Buddhanature - a view that is not universally affirmed in Mahayana

Astus wrote:
The last group to challenge universal buddha-nature were those of the http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/schools/faxiang.html school, and that position was not particularly popular even in their best days.

Queequeg said:
If your Buddhanature is not pointed out to you, how do you know you have it and that it is something to develop?

Astus wrote:
Actually, there are sutras that explicitly teach tathagatagarbha, and compared to them, the Lotus Sutra is a rather provisional teaching that may (or may not) imply universal buddha-nature. As it has been mentioned here before, there is a Yogacara commentary on it that explains how the Lotus Sutra is not in favour of tathagatagarbha.

Queequeg said:
2. You're insinuating that I'm talking about Buddhahood without effort. I never made such a statement. That said, Buddhahood is natural and inevitable for all of us. The question is now or later? Or much much later?

Astus wrote:
If it is inevitable, it does not matter what anyone does, and that qualifies for happening without effort, unless the indication is that eventually everybody will want to become a buddha, i.e. gains bodhicitta automatically, again, without effort. Since samsara is without beginning, there had already been a literally infinite time to develop the will for ultimate enlightenment, but apparently it did not happen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2017 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
Uh, what do you make of the universal prediction of Buddhahood, then? And the Buddha's assertion that he is always leading beings to awakening?

Astus wrote:
It is no different from saying that all beings have buddha-nature. However, having it and realising it are not the same. Since realisation does not happen automatically, there is a need for individual effort. So practically the presence or the absence of a prediction, of a buddha, or of buddha-nature makes no difference.

Queequeg said:
Back to step A. the dharmadhatu=thought-moment. The thing that is is acting against the delusion, is actually just part of the thought-moment that has been designated as alien, that part of the dharmadhatu that has been distinguished as other/not self.

Astus wrote:
Delusion is assuming a self. How does the assumption that there are other things besides one's self eliminate the assumption of a self? Also, since distinguishing one thing as self and another thing as not self are mutually dependent, if one half eliminated the other, the whole delusion could never even occur.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2017 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
That thought-moment encompasses the dharmadhatu (as expressed as the 3,000 realms).

Astus wrote:
How is that different from the Huayan idea of interdependence (aside from it narrowing things down to 3000)?

Queequeg said:
The notion of self is the mistake of taking a limited part of the dharmadhatu as the entirety of self. Close examination of that mistaken limitation reveals the error. Understanding that error completely is liberation from it.
The fact that the 3000 = the thought moment, in reality, means that if examined, everything short of 3000 = the thought moment will ultimately fail. This analysis encompasses both sunyata as well as dependent origination.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that identifying with the 3000/dharmadhatu as the true "big" self is the solution? How is that not just an exaggerated self-delusion?

Queequeg said:
Zhiyi seems to suggest that the real nature exerts a force against delusion; colloquially, reality has a way of asserting itself whether we like it, or usually, not, and that force is, cast in another light, the Buddha's compassion.

Astus wrote:
The problem with that is its assumption of a natural and necessary liberation. That is contrary to the whole path.

Queequeg said:
The novel approach Zhiyi proposes is the reversing of perspective which is possible because there is no self - no center of the dharmadhatu. That said, anything can thus be taken as the center of the dharmadhatu. Brook Ziporyn calls this "omnicentric holism".
Buddhism 101 - frames the issue as its our thirst that keeps the wheel spinning. Cutting the thirst stops the wheel. Zhiyi is suggesting, the dharmadhatu itself is exerting a force against the perpetuation of delusion. Suffering arises from that point of impact, but if we fully embrace that opposition, seek to understand the impact completely, we find that it is also the compassionate force of the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
What is that force exerted by the dharmadhatu against delusion? And if it opposes delusion, then it is not delusion that liberates itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
That is so much more convenient than cut/paste.

Queequeg said:
I have a few more Lotus Sutra resources that might help you if you want to get into the Chinese text. Some compendiums of Chinese terms matched up with the sanskrit in the version Kern translated. Its an imperfect resource but can be useful.

Astus wrote:
If I may recommend: https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=volume&vid=483
https://www.academia.edu/14864159/A_Glossary_of_Dharmarak%E1%B9%A3a_s_Translation_of_the_Lotus_Sutra_%E6%AD%A3%E6%B3%95%E8%8F%AF%E7%B6%93%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8
https://www.academia.edu/14864180/A_Glossary_of_Kum%C4%81raj%C4%ABva_s_Translation_of_the_Lotus_Sutra_%E5%A6%99%E6%B3%95%E8%93%AE%E8%8F%AF%E7%B6%93%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
both samsara and nirvana are uncaused and beginningless.

Astus wrote:
As mentioned to Minobu, "original enlightenment" is practically another word for emptiness. It is not about a golden age idea that first there was nirvana, then there was samsara, and finally one needs to return to samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Minobu said:
how do you get so screwed up from that point in time

Astus wrote:
Original enlightenment does not refer to a point in time but the nature of phenomena being originally pure, i.e. empty, not-self.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
I think it is Buddha Nature. Come to think of it, IIRC, Zhiyi referred to it as Middle Way/Buddhanature, and used these terms interchangeably.

Astus wrote:
Good, then I think this is then settled.

Queequeg said:
Another aspect of Zhiyi's thought is that for each delusion, there is a perfect antidote.

Astus wrote:
Antidotes for delusions is a fairly common idea in Buddhism.

Queequeg said:
The antidote is a function of the delusion. At a subtler level, the antidote to our delusions is their impermanence.

Astus wrote:
That makes little sense to me. Do you mean that delusions remove themselves or just disappear on their own? However, if not, but you mean that:
Goes along with his idea that we can take any object for contemplation and its thorough contemplation will lead to Buddhahood.
That again is a basic doctrine, contemplation of the true nature of any appearance. In fact, Mahayana scriptures often try to improve on this by saying that afflictions and ignorance are themselves awakening, so there is no need for antidotes, although we could call this another linguistic twist and not really an innovation.

Queequeg said:
It also goes along with the idea that enlightenment is a terminal state for everyone.

Astus wrote:
How about enlightenment being the original state?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
See comment above about Buddha as function.

Astus wrote:
If it stands for the ever present possibility of awakening, it is not much different from buddha-nature, but it sounds like an externalised form of it, in which case it is only good for inspiring people.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let's take another angle here: if Shakyamuni is an eternal buddha, what then? How is that important or relevant?

Furthermore, in a good number of sutras we find that the true buddha is actually the dharmadhatu/dharmakaya/tathata/etc. that is eternal, unborn, etc., so this points to the true nature of the world and beings, hence it has an important message that is generally accepted in Mahayana. Perhaps the Lotus Sutra is merely saying the same thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 5:25 PM
Title: Re: Righteous hatred
Content:
Astus wrote:
Hatred with an excuse is what is called righteous hatred. It has no place on the bodhisattva path.

"Upali, when involved in defilements, Bodhisattvas should tolerate the small transgressions which are hard to avoid, but should not tolerate the grave transgressions which are easy to avoid, not even in a dream. For this reason, if a follower of the Mahayana breaks precepts out of desire,I say he is not a transgressor; but if he breaks precepts out of hatred, it is a grave offense, a gross fault, a serious, degenerate act, which causes tremendous hindrances to the Buddha-Dharma."
(The Definitive Vinaya, in Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, p 270)

"The Tathagata, the Enlightened One,
Full of compassion for all beings:
For him there are no transgressions,
For him there is no going astray;
He has not fallen into confusion,
And he is the wise one, ever mindful."
(SN 1.35)

"Do not let anger overpower you;
Do not become angry at those who are angry.
Nonanger and harmlessness always dwell
Within [the hearts of] the noble ones.
Like a mountain avalanche
Anger crushes evil people."
(SN 11.25)

Considerations for the practice of the http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-08.pdf:

Then again, the bodhisattva reflects, “Even if people torment me in this present life, bringing ruinous defamation on me, forcefully seizing wealth, slighting me, scolding me, and putting me in bondage, I should nonetheless still maintain patience. If I fail to be patient, I am bound to fall into the hells and undergo countless forms of suffering on their iron-walled hot grounds, enduring roasting and broiling and punishments such as one cannot completely describe.”

Additionally, the bodhisattva considers, “When I first brought forth the resolve [to gain bodhi], I vowed to cure the mental diseases of beings. This being has now fallen ill with the fetter of hatred. I should be engaged in curing him. How then could I instead voluntarily make myself sick on this account? I should persevere in the practice of patience.”

Additionally, the bodhisattva reflects, “I am a bodhisattva. I desire to be of benefit to beings. If I become unable to maintain patience, then I can’t be called a “bodhisattva” at all, but rather should be known as one who is evil.”

Moreover, the bodhisattva knows that from long ago on up to the present, it has always been the case that causes and conditions come together and are falsely referred to as a “person” even though in actual fact there is no genuine dharma of a “person” involved at all. Who then is it that could be hated in such circumstances? There exist herein only bones and blood and skin and flesh. This is comparable to something laid up with bricks or to a wooden puppet displaying mechanical movements and manifesting comings and goings.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus, are you saying that identification with any state or knowledge is grasping/attachment and so we should have no refuge in anything whatsoever. Non abiding, no association. All attachments are futile because all is empty?

Astus wrote:
See what the Buddha says:

"childish ordinary beings construct unreal phenomena, construct erroneous qualities, and have constructed all phenomena, which are in fact insignificant and worthless. And thus they will go to hell, animal states of birth, and to the realm of the Lord of Death. Monk, furthermore, all phenomena are untrue; they have the characteristic that once created they do not remain. Monk, all phenomena are compounded; childish ordinary beings have given rise to attachment, hatred, and delusion. Monk, all phenomena arise from distorted perceptions. Monk, all phenomena lack existence, their very essence is like a mirage. Monk, all phenomena lack a core, they are like space. Monk, as all phenomena are devoid of reality, they are not real entities. Monk, as all phenomena are deep like space, they are deep. Monk, as all phenomena are unperceived, they are wide open. Monk, as all phenomena are utterly void, they are non-abiding. Monk, as all phenomena have no worth for anything at all, they are unreliable. Monk, as all phenemona are without worth whatsover, they are baseless. ... Monk, as the arising of all phenomena is unperceived, as their arising is insignificant, as their arising is worthless, as their arising is empty, and as their arising is peaceful, they are final nirvāṇa."
( http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-062-018/translation )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
So Buddhism does not speak of a "level" of reality beyond the conventional? I.e. the only levels spoken of are both firmly in/of the conventional: believing the conventional is reality, and believing the conventional is the conventional.
Or is another level mentioned outside the two truths paradigm?

Astus wrote:
Levels and realities are all what samsara is made of, so there are practically innumerable versions, and each one of them is a fine object of attachment. If there were another reality posited as the final liberation, how would it not be actually just another form of self-identity, another form of existence? At the same time, it is not that one should aim for non-existence either. The source of all problems is in fact one's craving to be somebody (bhavatrsna), or not to be somebody (vibhavatrsna). The teaching of the middle way eliminates the extreme views of existence and non-existence. What needs to be realised is that appearances are without essence, without self-nature, they are neither one's self or one's possessions. It's not that appearances are good or bad, they are not the one's making us cling to them, so appearances are fine. It is imagining them to be something other, something more than what they are, that is the error.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
I think another way to talk about it is buddha-nature.

Astus wrote:
That sounds better to me. Apparently the term "original buddha" (本佛) is not particularly common, although the Fo Guang e-dictionary (佛光電子大辭典) defines it by a quote on the lifespan in the Lotus Sutra with a reference to a Tiantai commentary, and following that it defines its other meaning to be the buddha-nature.

Queequeg said:
Vairocana (Avatamsaka Sutra - though I believe in E. Asia this Vairocana is often described as Sambhogakaya?)

Astus wrote:
It seems that according to Huayanzong he's a sambhogakaya, according to Tiantaizong he's a dharmakaya, and according to Mizong he's the single ultimate dharmakaya.

Queequeg said:
We have these various handles for this Buddha, but its implicit that these words fall short?

Astus wrote:
It's not that they fall short, rather it all becomes symbolic eventually.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Primordial Buddha: A Reprise
Content:
Queequeg said:
Without primordial buddha, enlightenment is impossible. In this sense, primordial buddha is the single gate, to everything else that is provisional.

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure what primordial buddha that is, but normally in Chan/Zen they talk about buddha-nature most of the time (and its identity with the dharmakaya or all three bodies) and not the primordial buddha usually identified as Vairocana following the Avatamsaka sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
So you can affirm something about conventional truth: It *is* this and that. But you can only disaffirm with ultimate truth: It is *not* this or that. Quite like emptiness, which is not the presence, rather the absence of (emptiness of) ... yes?

Astus wrote:
Both affirmation and negation are conventional terms. Emptiness is the ultimate truth. But to put it another way: conventional seen as the ultimate is the conventional, the conventional seen as the conventional is the ultimate. Again, in other words: when one grasps at appearances, that is delusion, while not grasping is liberation. However, to turn emptiness and non-attachment into another thing is still being stuck in grasping  conventions.

rachmiel said:
So the process of hearing -- air molecules trigger inner ear actions that in turn trigger an electrical signal to travel along auditory nerves to a region of the brain that then transmogrifies the signal to a quale of "heard sound" -- is no different from The Wizard of Oz?

Astus wrote:
If you mean that both are concepts, then yes, no different. Of course, once one compares the meaning of various concepts, within the frame of concepts, there are all sorts of differences. Note again that the point here is not to give a scientific or a literary assessment, but to bring one to the realisation of how attachment occurs.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2017 at 5:42 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Tibetan and Zen Buddhism other than Vajrayana practices?
Content:
hyperpuppy said:
1. What "liberation from samsara" means

Astus wrote:
As Mahayana schools they both maintain that unestablished (apratisthita) nirvana is the final attainment, including the accomplishment of buddhahood with the three bodies and buddha-qualities.

hyperpuppy said:
2. What "emptiness" means

Astus wrote:
They both maintain that emptiness is the absence of self-nature (svabhava) and that it is not separate from appearances (dharma). One complication in the use of the term can come from the Tiantai doctrine of Three Truths where emptiness signifies only the absence and the term 'middle' refers to the unity of emptiness and appearances.

hyperpuppy said:
What would you say are the major differences between Zen Buddhism and pre-Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism?

Astus wrote:
Most of the differences come from the separate histories of East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism arrived to China by around the 1st century CE, and unique interpretations started to develop, especially after the 5th century, and Chinese Buddhism became independent from India. Buddhism to Tibet arrived first in the 8th century, and another major transmission happened in the 11th century. In both cases it was a later period of Indian Buddhism that got introduced there that, doctrines that had little to no influence in China. For instance, the interpretation of the Prajnaparamita corpus in China has been based on the Mahaprajnaparamitaupadesha and in Tibet on the Abhisamayalamkara, but those two works have not even been translated to the other language. Also, the teachings of Pramana (Dignaga, Dharmakirti, etc.) and later trends of Madhyamaka and Yogacara (Chandrakirti, Shantarakshita, etc.) have not reached China or had not received much attention. Consequently, what Tibetans call the sutrayana is in fact only their version of Mahayana that is significantly different from the East Asian teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2017 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
Khenpo Brothers said:
On the absolute level, phenomena have no substantial existence whatsoever; they are dependently arisen mere appearances, like reflections in a mirror.

Astus wrote:
As you can see in the example of the water moon, the absence of the real moon is the absolute, the presence of the appearance moon is the relative level, while the two levels are a single reality as the water moon. See the unity of the two truths in these passages from http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-059-014/translation:

"Whoever understands emptiness well, understands nirvāṇa well. Whoever understands nirvāṇa well has no attachment to any entity, and despite designating conventional things with all sorts of terms—‘this is mine,’ or ‘that is me,’ or ‘sentient being,’ or ‘life force,’ or ‘living being,’ or ‘man,’ or ‘person,’ or ‘born of Manu,’ or ‘son of Manu,’ or ‘agent,’ or ‘inciter of action,’ or ‘appropriator,’ or ‘discarder’—he teaches Dharma without attachment to these. He teaches Dharma well. He teaches the final reality. He teaches the final reality well."

And briefly: "Even so phenomena are designated. The learned are not attached to them."

Khenpo Brothers said:
On the conventional level, ... On the absolute level...

Astus wrote:
The conventional level consists of words, concepts, ideas. The absolute level is recognising that concepts are just concepts, they do not have any real referents, they are without any real meaning.

Khenpo Brothers said:
What *can* be asserted about processes on the ultimate level?

Astus wrote:
Processes are illusions. They are no different from virtual characters in a fictional story. Would you even begin to question the motivations and feelings of such characters as if they had their own mind and senses?

Khenpo Brothers said:
Am I attempting to use concepts/metaphors to grok "that" to which no concepts/metaphors apply?

Astus wrote:
One better not fall for the comfort of assuming some unknowable mystery.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Would you say the same thing in response to the question "Are processes real?" That process and real are empty labels?
Is the existence or non-existence of *anything* asserted in the middle way?

Astus wrote:
This idea that one can assert the existence of processes, of dependent origination, is the concession to conventionality. But when a process is analysed, it cannot be affirmed as anything, or as nothing. The point of the teaching of emptiness is to realise that all concepts are unestablished, because taking concepts to be real is the delusion that results in suffering. This is not a purely theoretical issue, but the very essence of liberating wisdom.

Nagarjuna writes (MMK 21.9-16, tr Siderits):

"Arising and dissolution do not hold with respect to that which is empty.
Arising and dissolution do not hold with respect to that which is non-empty.
It does not hold that arising and dissolution are one.
It does not hold that arising and dissolution are distinct.
If you maintained that arising and dissolution of existents are indeed seen,
arising and dissolution are only seen because of delusion.
An existent is not produced from an existent, nor is a nonexistent produced from an existent.
An existent is not produced from a nonexistent, nor is a nonexistent produced from a nonexistent.
Not from itself nor from what is other is an existent produced,
and neither is it produced from both itself and what is other; from what, then, is it produced?
For one who acknowledges the existent, there would follow either eternalism or
annihilationism, for an existent would be either permanent or impermanent.
[Objection:] For one who acknowledges existents there would be neither annihilation nor eternity,
for a state of being is a series consisting of the arising and passing away of effect and cause.
[Reply:] If a state of being is a series consisting of the arising and passing away of effect and cause,
then annihilation of the cause follows, for there is no re-arising of what passes away."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Does the earth circle the sun?

Astus wrote:
Conventional truths are not debated, nor is it the purpose of the Buddhadharma to investigate such matters. But if it's any relevance, one can analyse such concepts as earth, sun, and circling to recognise that they are merely empty labels.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Question about processes
Content:
rachmiel said:
Which (if either) of these is Madhyamaka'lly correct:
Conventionally, processes exist.
Ultimately, processes do not exist.

Astus wrote:
Conventionally it makes sense to talk about arising and ceasing, birth and death, coming and going, etc. Ultimately there is nothing to arise and cease, etc. However, to mistake this for the extreme views of existence and non-existence is an error. It is also a mistake to imagine that there are really two kinds of truths.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2017 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: How does one learn to practice a Sutra?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Reciting, especially in an unknown language, is recitation practice. If one wants to practice what is taught in the sutra, one needs to understand it. Understanding a sutra can be assisted by commentaries, teachings, and other sutras. Then once it's understood, one can apply it.

And as Huineng said,

"Good friends, people of this world always recite prajñā with their mouths, but they don’t recognize the prajñā of the self-natures. This is like talking about eating, which doesn’t satisfy one’s hunger. If you just talk about emptiness with your mouths, you won’t be able to see the nature for a myriad eons. Ultimately, this is of no benefit at all."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition p 28)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2017 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and the zombie theory
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
My question is more what about those who haven't realized this emptiness and, encountering the idea of a mechanical body with no "real" consciousness, equate it to some kind of nihilistic materialism?

Astus wrote:
The idea of a mechanical body fits the modern scientific concept, so I doubt that this would be anyone's first encounter with it. Furthermore, contemplation on the body in terms of its parts, its repulsive nature, its eventual decomposition, and its elements are basic meditation topics, although not particularly popular among the laity. As for falling into the misconception of annihilation, that is a matter to be addressed before one begins meditation and analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2017 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and the zombie theory
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Not much room for compassion in or about a mechanical heap of mistakes is there?

Astus wrote:
Only with the realisation of emptiness can there be unbound compassion.

"The bodhisattvas and mahāsattvas should subdue their thoughts like this: All the different types of sentient beings, whether they be born from eggs, born from a womb, born from moisture or born spontaneously; whether or not they have form; whether they abide in perceptions or no perceptions; or without either perceptions or non-perceptions, I save them by causing them to enter nirvana without remainder. And when these immeasurable, countless, infinite number of sentient beings have been liberated, in actuality, no sentient being has attained liberation. Why is this so? Subhūti, If a bodhisattva abides in the signs of self, person, sentient being, or life-span, she or he is not a bodhisattva."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 3)

"There is no emptiness meditation not permeated by compassion;
For the practice of compassion is solely [the practice of] emptiness.
As for emptiness, even those seeking tranquil abiding must practice it.
For this vehicle, however, emptiness is compassion;
And the self-nature of this compassion is emptiness.
So understand that compassion is the essential nature."
(Atisha: Advice to Namdak Tsuknor, v 24, in Mind Training, p 267)

"You will reach a point when you see that emptiness and compassion, emptiness and phenomena, and absolute and relative truth, are intrinsically one, rather than being in each case two separate entities like the horns of a goat. The vaster your view of emptiness, the clearer your understanding will be of the infinite ways phenomena can manifest in accordance with the law of cause and effect. And it is from emptiness inseparable from compassion that a bodhisattva manifests.
This is the ultimate fruit of all the different teachings of the Mahayana and Mantrayana, of Madhyamika, Mahamudra and Dzogchen."
(Dilgo Khyentse: The Heart of Compassion, p 156-157)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2017 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and the zombie theory
Content:
Astus wrote:
The body is like a heap of grass, a mechanical contraption, while consciousness cannot be found or established as anything. We are all zombies, shadows of magically conjured illusions, conceptual mistakes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2017 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Is that how ordinary people understand it? And if it is, why is there need for a path?

Astus wrote:
If by ordinary you mean those who have not gained personal insight into emptiness, then yes, that is how they should understand it as the correct view. If by ordinary you mean those who do not know the Dharma, then no, because such people have not yet heard such concepts.

As for the need of a path, why wouldn't there be one? First of all, one needs to learn about the Dharma, then understand it, then personally verify it. Following experiential verification comes further practice to completely establish oneself in wisdom and perfect the other paramitas as well, not to mention the liberation of all beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2017 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There's an interpretation https://books.google.com.au/books?id=npRVBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT73&ots=-WuNqdq3ln&dq=%22That%20which%20originates%20dependently%22&pg=PT74#v=onepage&q=%22That%20which%20originates%20dependently%22&f=false from Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche which explains the verse in more detail.  The way I think of it is in terms of the interdependence of the transcendent and the immanent.

Astus wrote:
What do you call the transcendent and what the immanent? If you refer to emptiness and appearances, they are not interdependent, as they are not two separate things. The unborn is not interdependent with the born, but the nature of the born is that it is unborn, exactly because it is born. Just as TKR explains in the section you referred to: "In Madhyamaka philosophy, ultimate reality is not seen as something that exists outside of or above the empirical reality with which we are confronted every day. Rather, emptiness is the nature of the very world that we live in, so the nature of the empirical world is ultimate reality." and "In fact, the ultimate is understood only through an understanding of the relative, because ultimate truth is, in fact, the nature of the relative truth."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2017 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Attaining Full Enlightenment During an Empowernment
Content:
DGA said:
is there not at least one major empowerment that includes, in a recognizable if not necessarily named way, direct introduction?

Astus wrote:
That is the 4th, the http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Precious_word_empowerment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2017 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa
Content:
Wayfarer said:
You might think that 'that which originates dependently' would normally be said to 'arise and cease'. That is because everything that is subject to dependent origination is 'anicca', impermanent.
Yet Nāgārjuna says here that what originates dependently does not arise and cease.

Astus wrote:
If something is dependently originated, it cannot sustain itself, so it does not have a substance, it is not a thing in itself. Because it is not in itself, it is not anything in particular, it is not something identifiable as this or that. This absence of substance is also called emptiness. Because it is nothing in itself, it cannot be said to become, as there is nothing to become, nor can it be said to perish, as there is nothing to perish. That is how in dependent origination there is nothing that originates, that birth is no birth.

Wayfarer said:
would it be correct to say, that this verse is one of the grounds which differentiates Nāgārjuna from the early schools?

Astus wrote:
Yes, in the sravaka teachings one has to observe how something appears, remains, and disappears. In Mahayana one has to realise that all appearances are unborn and undying. Another important thing here is that in the sravaka teachings the uncompounded is what is called unborn, particularly nirvana, so saying that all dharmas are unborn also means that all dharmas are nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2017 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
What is it that's never born ?

Astus wrote:
"That which originates dependently
Does not cease and does not arise,
Does not come and does not go,
Is not annihilated and is not permanent,
Is not different and not the same."
(Nagarjuna, MMK, tr from Ornament of Reason)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2017 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: What is Ignorance (avidya)?
Content:
Queequeg said:
one of the books on my shelf that will likely not get the attention I want to give it until this dusty household life becomes a little less dusty. If all goes well, another 16.5 years, at the earliest. I need a long life this time around.

Astus wrote:
No need to wait, just see your nature. Then you find the 84,000 sutras in a single atom.

"The unsurpassable bodhi is to be able, at these very words, to recognize your own fundamental mind and to see that your own fundamental nature is neither born nor extinguished. It is to see this naturally in every moment of thought and at all times: the myriad dharmas are without obstruction; the one is true and all are true. The myriad realms are naturally thuslike, and the thuslike mind is the true. If what you see is like this, then it is the self-nature of the unsurpassable bodhisattva."
(Platform Sutra, ch 1, BDK p 21)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2017 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: What is Ignorance (avidya)?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I think I can intuit what this means. Can you explain briefly?

Astus wrote:
"Samantabhadra says that connate ignorance is unconscious, unmindful. It is unawareness. The dominating ignorance brings the connate ignorance, which arises simultaneously with our mind. The connate ignorance is together with every moment of our consciousness, with every moment of our awareness. We know it’s there, but, each moment, we fail to recognize it. Right now we are saying to ourselves that we must recognize it, but the next moment we miss it again. And the next moment we say that to ourselves again. And then, the next moment, we miss it again. This repetitive failure to recognize the dominating ignorance is the connate ignorance.
The connate ignorance is actually the nature of not recognizing. At the very moment of not being aware, as one’s consciousness is totally ignorant, pristine awareness is very much present. At the very moment I have a tremendous sense of emotion, it exists within the basic state of rigpa, the pristine awareness. This is what we call connate. In that very moment of experiencing ignorance, it is already in the nature of alpha-pure wisdom. It’s not really arising at the same time; the alphapure wisdom is its basic nature. The nature of ignorance is the same as the nature of wisdom. It’s always there. This nature of ignorance is the unawareness."
(Dzogchen Ponlop: Penetrating Wisdom, p 104-105)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2017 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: The Mind-Only Tradition
Content:
srivijaya said:
So it makes me wonder why the school is called mind-only when they have no ontological position. As the designation seems to imply existent (if impermanent and changing) mind and non-existent objects of awareness, which is again ontological.

Astus wrote:
If you look at Vasubandhu's verses, he uses the term vijñaptimātra, translated as "mere representation of consciousness" (Kochumuttom), or perception-only (Anacker), or weishi (唯識 - consciousness only / mere consciousness). Then one can think about the matter of what https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8673/2580 actually means. However, Yogacara is bigger than Asanga and Vasubandhu, and there are of course the misrepresentations by the opponents, so why and who thinks what is quite complicated. The mistake one should not fall into, and this generally applies to the whole of Buddhism as well, is to assume a homogeneous doctrine for a school or tradition.

srivijaya said:
Is "mind" a collective noun here?

Astus wrote:
Mind in Buddhism is always a collective noun, since assuming a unitary consciousness is equal to assuming a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2017 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: The Mind-Only Tradition
Content:
srivijaya said:
How do we define "mind" in Mind-Only?

Astus wrote:
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses
Xuanzang: http://www.cttbusa.org/8consciousnesses/contents.asp


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2017 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: What is Ignorance (avidya)?
Content:
Queequeg said:
This is more or less a madhyamika "revelation through utter negation"

Astus wrote:
Yes.

"That there are no names that can be named is to name the self-natures."
(Platform Sutra, ch 8, BDK p 79)

But it has some extras as well.

The self-natures are endowed with the three bodies.
Generating illumination, the four wisdoms are created.
Without transcending the conditions of seeing and hearing,
One transcendentally ascends to the stage of buddhahood.
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK p 60)

Queequeg said:
So ignorance = deluded as to self-nature?

Astus wrote:
Yes.

The suchlike self-nature is the true Buddha;
False views and the three poisons are King Māra.
During false delusion Māra is in one’s home;
During correct views the Buddha is in one’s hall.

When false views and the three poisons are generated in the nature,
This is for King Māra to come reside in one’s home.
When with correct views one eradicates the three poisonous [states of] mind,
Māra is transformed into the Buddha, true and not provisional.

The dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya—
The three bodies are fundamentally a single body.
If one can see it oneself within the nature,
This is the cause of bodhi and the achievement of buddhahood.

...

If you have encountered the sudden teaching in this lifetime,
Become enlightened immediately to the self-nature and see the World-honored One.
If you cultivate by trying to become a buddha,
You’ll never know where to seek for the true.

If you are able to see the true in your own mind,
Having the true will be the cause of your achieving buddhahood.
If you do not see the self-nature but seek the Buddha externally,
Every activation of your mind will be that of a big fool.

(Platform Sutra, ch 10, BDK p 90, 91)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2017 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: The Mind-Only Tradition
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Which one of these statements about the mind-only tradition is true (or are both right? Are both wrong in their way)?

1) The mind-only tradition, specifically on account of its being a "mind-only" discourse, offers a valid metaphysical and (perhaps) cosmological description of the true nature of the reality we "appear" to inhabit.

or 2) The mind-only perspective establishes no metaphysics or other basis for existence and is properly a methodology, not a worldview, to realize no-self and emptiness. It is a means to and end rather than any sort of establishment or presentation of any reality.

Astus wrote:
First of all, from Vasubandhu's Trimsatika (tr Kochumuttom):

"One does not abide in the realization
Of mere representations of consciousness
Just on account of the [theoretical] perception
That all this is mere representation of consciousness,
If one places [ = sees] something before oneself."

That doesn't mean there is no view presented. There is, and it is a view one needs to learn, understand, and take to one's heart. It is based on that correct view that one can then attain realisation beyond mere concepts. But not to take up the view, saying it is just a skilful means, is not understanding the importance of establishing the correct view.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2017 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: What is Ignorance (avidya)?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As far as Zen goes on defining the meaning:

"When one is deluded as to the self-nature, one is a sentient being, but when one realizes the self-nature, one is a buddha."
(Platform Sutra, ch 3, BDK Edition, p 39)

"If you depend merely on oral explanations of seeing the nature, [like a] deluded person you will have thoughts relative to the realms and you will even activate false views regarding those thoughts. And from this will be generated all the enervating defilements and false thoughts! There is in the self nature fundamentally not a single dharma that can be perceived. To think that there were any would be a false explanation, a disaster, a false view of enervating defilements."
(ch 4, p 44)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2017 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: The Mind-Only Tradition
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the Mahayana system it has been established that those belonging to the three worlds are mere representations of consciousness. This is clear from the aphorism, ‘Oh ! Jinaputra, those belonging to the three worlds are mere mind’ . The terms mind [citta] , thought-consciousness, [mano-vijnana] and representation of consciousncss [vijnapti] are synonyms. Here mind should be understood along with its associates [samprayoga]. The term ‘mere’ indicates the exclusion of the [external] objects.

It is all mere representation of consciousness,
Because there is the appearance of non-existent objects.
Just as a man with a cataract
Sees hairs, moons etc.,
Which do not exist in reality.
(Vasubandhu: Vimsatika, tr Kochumuttom)

So the answer to the question: "The term ‘mere’ indicates the exclusion of the [external] objects." However, it doesn't fit exactly to say that "only mind exists", because, as he writes in the Trimsika:

"When one does not perceive also a supporting consciousness,
For, the graspable objects being absent, 
There cannot either be the grasping of that"

In other words, without an object there is no subject either.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2017 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Schools of Buddhism mind map
Content:
Astus wrote:
Madhyamaka was the first major doctrinal exposition on the concept of emptiness, and serves as the basis for everyone else who came later. Yogacara, as the second major school of Mahayana thought, and arguably the real first Mahayana system, is the second set of doctrines that influenced everyone else. Of course, preceding both one should mention the various abhidharma systems, primarily the Sarvastivadin and the Vaibhasika. So, following the abhidharmikas, madhyamikas, and yogacarins we can skip to Chinese Buddhism, where the newer schools of Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan emerged. Then from Chinese Buddhism developed the Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese forms. But the question really is the purpose of such a map, and what it is that it wants to describe. If it's the relationship between the various schools - and what schools exactly - then it should consider the historical and geographical changes. Furthermore, Buddhism is more than so called schools, and the sutras and the vinayas are likely even more important.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2017 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Schools of Buddhism mind map
Content:
Astus wrote:
That is a fairly misleading map, displaying various schools as if they had emerged independently of each other. Furthermore, some are philosophical systems, some are organisations, some are long dead, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2017 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment vs. Liberation vs. Awakening
Content:
Astus wrote:
The common word for bodhi in Chinese is pú​tí 菩提, i.e. a transliteration. But, another term that may be used for bodhi is dào 道, i.e. way. Now that is a loaded word. So, I think one can stay with whatever English term seems fitting in the context, as long as the usage remains consistent and clear.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2017 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Theravada practices
Content:
Justmeagain said:
Does this mean that Theravadins acheive Mahamudra too by practicing Vipassana and Samatha?

Astus wrote:
First you might want to specify what calming and insight stand for in Theravada and in Mahamudra.

Also, if you want to study a structural interpretation of doctrines, Ringu Tulku's https://books.google.hu/books?id=ETAtDQAAQBAJ is a fine work for that.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Differences about Zen Soto, Son and Thien. Searching right for me.
Content:
OneTwoThree said:
Does Zen Soto, Son and Thien different a lot?

Astus wrote:
Mostly, yes, unless it's "Westernised", in which case they reduce things to meditation and not much else.

OneTwoThree said:
I would like to choose that one, which is the closer one with Thich Nhat Hanh’s Thien school.

Astus wrote:
What TNH teaches and what Thien looks like in general are two different things. This is applicable to everyone else as well, that specific groups and teachers can have more or less unique elements.

OneTwoThree said:
I feel Son is good idea.

Astus wrote:
If by that you mean the KUSZ - again, not representative of Korean Buddhism in general - it is probably a good idea, since they are accessible in Poland.

OneTwoThree said:
Second question, is it ok to use services of different zen schools at one time? As I am forced to do probably.

Astus wrote:
What you do at home is your business. But when in a group, you do what everyone else.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Consciousness turns back upon itself; it does not extend beyond name-and-form
Content:
Astus wrote:
The recommended sources for study listed here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12133

My short response on the question:

Consciousness and name and form practically include each other, as 'name' means the four mental aggregates, also listed as "feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html ), i.e. the universal mental factors.

Consciousness could as well be called a state of mind and the factors are the functions or activities of the mind. When one identifies with a thought, a state of mind emerges, and when there is a state of mind, one is identifying with a thought. It's like thinking 'happy' and 'being happy'. When there is no identification, no grasping, then there is no state of mind, nor any factor to cling to.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
How about I put my OP this way....are Mahamudra and Shikantaza synonymous?

Astus wrote:
One can find common elements between the Great Seal and Just Sitting. Both are meant as the realisation of the ultimate truth, for instance. Both view the ultimate wisdom as the absence of attachment and detachment. Both see beings as originally enlightened and appearances as originally pure.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
there's no enlightenment without HYT. It's not an opinion, it's the teaching of Buddha Vajradhara ...  No HYT, no enlightenment.

Astus wrote:
Then let's just say it is not a teaching others accept as definitive, just as you do not accept their teachings as definitive.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The Heart Sutra is perfectly aligned with the longer Perfection of Wisdom Sutra but when people claim they can attain enlightenment by meditating on the clarity of the mind which is only a conventional truth or that generation stage of HYT is not necessary, these heresies which are clearly contrary to Buddha's teachings in the Perfection of Wisdom and the Tantras are clearly not the word of Buddha.

Astus wrote:
That necessity of HYT, generation stage, etc. might be the opinion of one or two traditions (Gelug, and Sakya?), but nobody else. So it is a bit strong to call most of Mahayana lineages heresies.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha taught a path to enlightenment, either to the small enlightenment of a Hearer, the middling enlightenment of a Solitary Realizer or the great enlightenment of a Buddha - he did not teach sudden enlightenment, a 'non-path' or the abandonment of conceptual minds as a path to enlightenment.

Astus wrote:
According to the whole of East Asian Mahayana and some groups of Tibetan Mahayana the Buddha did teach sudden enlightenment, etc. So it seems that view you represent is rather in the minority.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
That's all Mahāmudra is.

Astus wrote:
Fine. Then let me ask again: what do you call all the other things taught under the label of Mahamudra?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Queequeg said:
That's too far, isn't it?
From a modern scholarly perspective, ie. the Social Sciences, the legends are more raw material for study.
For the modern scholar, all of it is just more stuff to catalog and analyze.

Astus wrote:
If one wants to establish a historical sequence, then it does not matter how old a tradition believes itself to be. What one should look for are datable and verifiable evidences. At the same time, it also means that one cannot say anything more than what the evidence can corroborate. So, for instance the Shurangama Sutra can be believed to be 2500 years old, but historically it is datable only to 8th century China. Similarly, Dzogchen may proclaim itself to go back to India, but the earliest texts are 9th century Tibet. To put it another way, who would believe today a person who claims to be the sole representative of an ancient Buddhist lineage nobody has yet heard of and nothing can back up its existence?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
But it really doesn't work that way. No matter what books you might have read. Mahāmudra is nongradual.

Astus wrote:
It is non-gradual if you limit Mahamudra to the realisation of and familiarisation with the nature of mind. But if you consider the methods used to reach the realisation, then it can be gradual.

"When Gampopa taught sudden realizers he first taught the view and then, from within the view, proceeded into meditation. When he taught gradual realizers he first had them develop experience with meditation and then led them into the view. Among gradual realizers there are two subtypes: those whose mind is extremely wild and those whose mind is extremely unclear. To those with wild mind he taught vipashyana first. To those with extremely unclear mind he first taught shamata. The procedure in Moonlight of Mabamudra begins with shamata and proceeds to vipashyana."
(Thrangu: Essentials of Mahamudra, p 101-102)

"The Mahamudra system contains three approaches: sutra Mahamudra, tantra Mahamudra, and essence Mahamudra. According to sutra Mahamudra, one proceeds gradually through the five paths and ten bodhisattva stages, each practice followed by another. When one has reached a certain point, one continues step by step on to the next practice. One presents one's understanding and the master will check it. The whole procedure is very gradual and quite safe."
(Chokyi Nyima: Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, p 57)

"The Sutra Mahamudra approach is seen as a specialty of the Kagyu tradition and was the central emphasis of Gampopa's teachings. Therefore, although it originated in India and was also taught by Marpa and Milarepa, Gampopa is regarded as the main figure responsible for bringing this teaching to its full development and manifestation.
...
Essence Mahamudra is transmitted through a path more profound and more wondrous than the previous two because it leads to the sudden realization of the true nature of mind, which is called thamal8Ji shepa (tha mal8Ji shes pa), or ordinary mind. ... On this path, there is no need for either the elaborate methods of Mantra Mahamudra or the gradual training of Sutra Mahamudra. In Sutra Mahamudra, there are still some forms; for example, the practices of shamatha and vipashyana meditation, as well as the practices of bodhichitta, are retained."
(Dzogchen Ponlop: Wild Awakening p 33, 34-35)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
In other words, Buddha did not teach Dzogchen. How then can it be a Buddhist practice? Buddha Shakyamuni predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna and Je Tsongkhapa but not Garab Dorje.

Astus wrote:
The question is rather what kind of history or legendary accounts one accepts. If one takes literally every traditions account of itself, then they are all the best and most authentic. If one takes a modern scholarly perspective, then sectarian legends are irrelevant.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that uncommon śamatha and vipāśyāna is based on knowledge you have. Common śamatha and vipāśyāna is no different than sutrayāna practice. The former is based on direct introduction, and it is basically the same as the four samadhis of Dzogchen Sems sde: calmness ( gnas pa ), immovability ( mi g.yo ba ), nonduality ( gnyis med ) and natural perfection ( lhun grub ).

Astus wrote:
And what I described was that one practises the common calming and insight followed by the uncommon, and this order can be set into the four yogas where the first two are common calming and insight, and the last two are the uncommon.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Matt J said:
You could take it in a number of ways, that is exactly the problem.

Astus wrote:
That seems to be the case with everything.

Matt J said:
We can have a group of people who all claim to practice Shikantaza, and say they are just sitting without grasping or rejection, but really, one person may be sinking into a dull, indeterminate state; one person may be cultivating mindfulness; another may be daydreaming and engaging in mental chatter.

Astus wrote:
So it is with any other inner cultivation. But that has no relevance to what the ideal is.

Matt J said:
It is hard to say without practical and detailed guidance, which is largely missing in Soto Zen (at least as transmitted in the West).

Astus wrote:
Zazen can be described simply and clearly, like http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html. What more should be said?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you apparently agree with my statement, "...in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru."

Astus wrote:
No. There are two interpretations of the four yogas I know of, and the more popular one among Kagyupas seems to be the view that one-pointedness is interpreted as the common practice of calming and concentration, while it is during simplicity / non-elaboration that one gains insight into the nature of mind. Accordingly, calming and insight are practised in order to gain knowledge, and only following that can one cultivate their unified form (the third yoga of one taste) based on the realisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
So my OP was designed to establish whether there is (in your opinions) a discernable different between Mahamudra and Shikantaza? Apart from the obvious cultural accoutrements of course.
Just to reiterate, I can't see any parallel at all. But keep hearing that there is?!?

Astus wrote:
When taking Mahamudra to be the practice of non-meditation where appearances liberate themselves, that can be read as identical with the practice of Shikantaza where there is neither grasping nor rejection. However, as you can see, there is more to both traditions than that, even if eventually they both reach the same point.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
Common śamatha and vipaśayāna are engaged in by those who have no experience of the nature of the mind. But in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru, as in Dzogchen sems sde or trekchö, or the Lamdre's "inseparability of samsara and nirvana" and so on.

Astus wrote:
The reason calming and insight is practised is to experience the nature of mind. The difference between sudden and gradual according to Tashi Namgyal is that those with supreme intellect do not need to practise calming but can directly gain insight following their familiarity with the teachings. Then, according to Thrangu rinpoche, the difference between common and special practice of calming and insight is that in Mahamudra one begins with insight into the nature of mind instead of insight into the nature of appearances. Finally, systematic instruction in calming and insight is more reliable and efficient according to him then pointing out instructions. So, at least in the Dagpo Kagyu tradition, the gradual practice of calming and insight is cultivated in order to realise the nature of mind. And that is quite logical, since once one is clear about self-liberation, there is no point in engaging in focusing on objects and analysing them.

From Mahamudra the Moonlight:

A Differentiation of Mahamudra Meditation:

"There are, in general, two paths. There is the rapid path, which is designed for a person with a superb intellect, and who is well-disposed to an instantaneous illumination. He has to master, at the outset, the doctrinal views of reality [through analytical insight and] through the clearing away of doubts and distortions. He then concentrates wholly on the vision of reality [established through wisdom]. Then there is the gradual path, which is for a person of an average or inferior intellect who is disposed toward a gradual illumination. He has to master first the meditation on inner tranquility, and then seek to gain analytical insight.
...
The meditational system of the Dakpo Kagyüpa order consists of two systems. The first system, which meets the needs of seekers inclined toward an instantaneous illumination, directs them, at the outset, to master the vision of reality by clearing doubts and distortions concerning the natural foundation of existence, and then settle the mind [in a nondual] state. The second system, which meets the demands of seekers of gradual illumination, directs them first to achieve tranquility of mind and then gradually strive toward insight. The former method would be more suitable for highly intelligent and sensitive persons. Nevertheless, I shall elucidate the latter at this stage because it is widely known in Tibet [the Land of Snow Mountains]."
(p 144, 145-146)

The Reason Why Meditation on Insight Is Necessary:

"the determination of nonselfhood [in one’s psychophysical aggregates] through discerning intellect, followed by meditation, will result in attaining permanent peace. No other means can completely eliminate misery and defilement."
(p 178)

From Thrangu rinpoche's An Introduction to Mahamudra Meditation on the difference between sutrayana and mantrayana practice of calming and insight:

"What are these extraordinary instructions of the Vajrayana? Essentially the concept of emptiness in the Vajrayana is the same as that taught by the Buddha in the sutras. The only difference is the method which is used in the Vajrayana. In the Vajrayana method of Mahamudra we do not to worry about external appearances because external appearances, such as mountains and buildings are not our problem, nor do they particularly help us. In fact, they are empty as is logically proven in the sutras, but we don’t meditate on them. Nor do we particularly meditate upon the emptiness or insubstantiality of the body.
In the Vajrayana we meditate upon that which is most important, which is the nature of our mind because it is the mind creates pleasure and pain, it is the mind that gives rise to experience, it is the mind that experiences everything. It is the mind that generates disturbing emotions, it is the mind that generates faith and devotion. So the mind is most important. Therefore in Vajrayana, in the practice of Mahamudra, we look at the nature of mind rather than attempting to look at the nature of appearances."
(p 31-32)

And from Thrangu rinpoche's commentary on The Ninth Karmapa's Ocean of Devinitive Meaning:

It is said that you can tell whether or not you have genuinely heard the teachings and understood their point by whether or not you are tame and peaceful in your conduct. And you can tell whether or not your meditation is effective by whether or not your kleshas are diminishing. Ideally, someone should finally have no kleshas whatsoever. But even on the way to that klesha-free state, your kleshas and thoughts should diminish. Therefore, I think that it is of far greater importance than the experience of dramatic instantaneous pointing out that people be taught mahamudra as a full system of instruction that they can implement on their own gradually through diligent application using either one of the three texts by the Ninth Gyalwang Karmapa—The Ocean of Definitive Meaning, Dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance, or Pointing Out the Dharmakaya— or one of the texts by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal—either Moonbeams of Mahamudra or The Clarification of the Natural State.
In short, I think it is of far more importance that people receive this kind of complete and systematic instruction so that they can gradually develop experience on their own, than that some kind of dramatic pointing-out procedure be done. Of course, it is possible to give dramatic pointing-out instruction, and when you do so, some people do recognize their mind’s nature. But, if I may say so, I question the stability and, therefore, ultimately the value of that. It certainly is a dramatic experience for those people who achieve it, but I see no evidence of their kleshas diminishing as a result. And furthermore, they then carry away with them the arrogance of the thought, “I have seen my mind’s nature.” I think it is of far greater importance actually to practice meditation slowly and surely and make all possible use of the resources which this book in particular gives you.
(p 127-128)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
With respect to Mahāmudra, it is simply wrong.

Astus wrote:
If that is wrong, then what do you consider all the methods transmitted under the label of Mahamudra, particularly the techniques of calming and insight?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: What is the Zen and/or Chan assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?
Content:
Tenzintharpa said:
A) Exist as Illusion, existing only as a projection of the mind, (literally unreal).
B) Exist as Illusion ‘like’; real but existing in an ethereal manner, lacking any inherent true essence; nominally existent.
C) Do Zen and/or Chan deny the existence of conventional phenomena and/or matter?

Astus wrote:
In a dream Kyõzan Oshõ went to Maitreya's place and was led in to sit in the third seat. A senior monk struck with a gavel and said, "Today the one in the third seat will speak." Kyõzan rose and, striking with the gavel, said, "The truth of Mahayana is beyond the four propositions and transcends the hundred negations. Taichõ! Taichõ!" [Hear the truth!]
( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm )

A monk asked Grand Master Ma, "Please, Teacher, going beyond the permutations of assertion and denial, directly point out to me the meaning of the coming from the West."
Master Ma said, "I'm tired today and can't explain for you. Go ask Chih Tsang." When the monk asked Chih Tsang,J Tsang said, "Why didn't you ask the Teacher? " The monk said, "The Teacher had me come here to ask you." Tsang said, "I have a headache today and can't explain for you. Go ask Elder Brother Hai." When the monk asked Elder Brother Hai (Pai Chang), Hai said, "At this point, after all, I don't understand."
When the monk related this to Grand Master Ma, Master Ma said, "Tsang's head is white, Hai's head is black."
(Blue Cliff Record, case 73, tr Cleary & Cleary)

The four propositions (四句) are either existence, non-existence, one, many (有無一異) or the catuskoti (being, non-being, both, neither). The hundred negations (百非) are the permutations of the four as that each contains the four possibilities (4x4=16), then multiplied by the three times (16x3=48), then doubled by the options of arisen or about to arise (48x2=96), and the original four added and thus the hundred negations. These are Chinese Madhyamaka teachings regarding the two truths. See more in Shi Changqing's book: "The Two Truths in Chinese Buddhism".

But, as you can see from the above two stories, Zen is not really a follower of Madhyamaka. Furthermore, Zen was influenced more by Tiantai and especially by Huayan teachings. So, on the subject of two truths, the teaching of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharmadh%C4%81tu seems more appropriate. Although that's still just background information, the two terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Function are often used in the fashion of two truths. You might check on it this essay: http://www.acmuller.net/articles/indigenoushermeneutics.htm.

Finally, there is no such thing as "according to Zen", simply because Zen is not a single church or a unified tradition, but a very generic term for loosely connected groups of people, texts, and traditions. But, to give a straightforward answer finally, I'd say the most common interpretation of conventional phenomena is that they are not different from buddha-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
The four yogas in reality are not a means to achieve anything. They are a means to familiarize oneself with the nature of the mind one has already recognized.

Astus wrote:
I think I did not describe the yogas as methods either.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
The principle of both mahāmudra and the great perfection is to distinguish the mind from the nature of the mind. That is accomplished on the basis of the intimate instructions of a qualified guru. But in both cases there is no gradual path.

Astus wrote:
"See nature, become buddha" could be called a shared idea of Zen and Mahamudra. But while you don't find much on the topic of gradual instructions in Zen, it seems to me that people like Dagpo Tashi Namgyal and Wangchuk Dorje worked hard on spelling out the details of the preliminary practices, the main practices of calming and insight, and the stages of the four yogas, just as modern teachers of the tradition, like Thrangu Rinpoche, follow in their footsteps. I'm not debating what you say about Mahamudra, but it seems to me that is a somewhat selective presentation. Furthermore, I consider those detailed instructions in the Mahamudra tradition of Gampopa an asset, and I'm not saying that it makes it anything inferior.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
Some have buddhahood as their basis.

Astus wrote:
It is still the goal/fruit as well, isn't it?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are both paths of self-liberation. There is no gradual training for either.

Astus wrote:
Do you then call the rest what? Preliminaries? Still, they are preliminaries somewhat specific in each tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
But I think the process of practice is a given.
One is utterly without form, the other its antithesis.
Do both practices lead to the same end?

Astus wrote:
All Mahayana traditions have buddhahood as their goal. As for any of them being better, quicker, higher, etc., while that can be an entertaining topic to discuss, when it comes to walking the path, the inclinations and opportunities of the individual decide what is fitting.

Justmeagain said:
I guess my concern is that I don't want to waste my time on a practice that is not as effective as another.

Astus wrote:
Effective is always what works for you. As you may have already heard, zazen is good for nothing and in mahamudra there is nothing to do.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mahāmudra is non-gradual, actually.

Astus wrote:
Although one can say that " http://www.unfetteredmind.org/pith-instructions-on-mahamudra/ " and " http://keithdowman.net/guestpage/maitripas-essential-mahamudra-verses.html ", there is still a gradual path employed to train in it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
Whilst I appreciate they're different traditions I can't help but feel they're so far apart so as to be almost contradictory.
...
The two practices couldn't be further apart in my opinion.

Astus wrote:
Zen practice begins and ends at non-abiding. Mahamudra provides a gradual path to non-abiding. There is no contradiction in that, they are simply different approaches.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Zen being Japanese, Mahamudra being Tibetan

Astus wrote:
That might be relevant in some aspects, like robes, instruments, etc., but not in the basic concept of the path. To find a common denominator between Zen and Mahamudra, it is mainly the prajnaparamita teachings. But then, the prajnaparamita is shared among all Mahayana traditions anyway.

Shikantaza is the immediate recognition of the buddhas' wisdom, there are no steps or stages provided. The Dagpo Kagyu tradition provides a step by step instruction on the stages from the preliminaries to the four yogas. That amounts to more than just a "philosophical attitude".


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
So called sutra mahamudra includes calming meditation with and without object, and insight meditation with and without analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sky gazing can be found in the PP sutras.

Astus wrote:
To take the passage as a reference to any group's practice, we'd need to find such a group.

By the way, are you referring to this often quoted passage, or is it something else?

ākāśa dṛṣṭu iti sattva pravyāharanti nabhadarśanaṃ kutu vimṛṣyatha etamartham /
tatha dharmadarśanu nidiṣṭa tathāgatena na hi darśanaṃ bhaṇitu śakya nidarśanena //
( http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/4_rellit/buddh/bsu028pu.htm )

起虛空見眾生相，　　虛空無相不可得，
佛說法法非相應，　　不說非有非無相。
( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T08n0229_002 )

A vision in space is a being, so they declare.
A vision like that of space, so should you consider that object!
Thus has the vision of Dharma been expounded by the Tathagata.
But it is not possible to report on that vision by definite statements [that differ from it].
(Ratnaguna ch 12, tr Conze)

Some sentient beings say that they have seen the sky,
Yet how is the sky to be "seen?" Examine the meaning of this.
Likewise, the Tathagata has shown this way to see all phenomena.
(Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p 250)

Malcolm said:
Your statements assumes that yogic practices come from texts, rather than the other way around. Bad assumption.

Astus wrote:
What is the earliest example of sky gazing in a Dzogchen text?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Shurangama Sutra existed in China by around 730, if not earlier. Trisong Detsen, who invited Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra to Tibet, began his rule in 755. According to Sam van Schaik Dzogchen did not exist on its own until the 10th century, and Menngagde works date back only to the 11th century. In other words, not only sky gazing and leap over practices were nowhere around when the sutra appeared, but even Dzogchen has not yet formed.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2017 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: The essessence of the teachings is not different...
Content:
Astus wrote:
What essence? Who of the various schools stated that there is such a shared essence? On the contrary, Buddhists rejected the Vedantins, and Vedantins rejected the Buddhists.

"The conceptions of the Sankhyas, the Kanadas and the Buddhists about them are not tenable according to reason. They should never be accepted. For they are not supported by reason and the scriptures. Hundreds and thousands of errors on their part may be mentioned. As the scriptures other than the Vedas have been condemned (in the ancient sacred tradition) "scriptures other than these," (they should not be accepted). A wise man should give up the teachings of such scriptures and all crookedness, and, with faith and devotion, should have a firm understanding of the true import of the Vedantas accepted by Vyasa."
(Shankara: Upadeshasahasri 16.64-67, tr Jagadananda, p 187-188)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Did Mahayana influence Theravada Buddhism?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
both are true descendants of pre-sectarian Buddhism

Astus wrote:
Sectarians are the true descendants of the pre-sectarians. That is, both are sectarians.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:
Dharma Flower said:
Thank you for these recommendations. Are there Zen Buddhists in the West who read and put into practice these Pure Land-related materials explained from a Zen perspective? It seems that Zen in the West might not always be in tune with the devotional practices found in Zen as practiced in Asia, even including Japan.

Astus wrote:
Mostly those who follow traditional Chinese and Vietnamese schools.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:
crazy-man said:
Honen Shonin (Jodo-Shu), Shinran Shonin (Jodo-Shin-Shu), Myōan Eisai (Rinzai-Shu), Dogen Zenji (Soto-Shu) and Nichiren Daishonin (Nichiren-Shu) were former monks of the Tendai-Shu and i think that they took some elements from the teaching of the Tendai-Shu into their own teachings.

Astus wrote:
Honen established and Shinran followed the teaching of exclusive nenbutsu, so they have practically nothing to do with Tendai or Zen. Eisai had no heirs and he led a sort of ecumenical temple. Dogen rejected the Pure Land path, while Nichiren rejected both Pure Land and Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Malcolm said:
one remains in the natural nirmanakāya buddhafields for only five hundred human years before attaining buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
What is a natural nirmanakaya buddha field? And how is that relevant, when from Sukhavati one can visit innumerable buddhas and fields?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Malcolm said:
Not according to Dzogchen teachings. Making prayers to be reborn in this or that pure realm is not a guarantee that you will in fact take rebirth in this or that pure land in your next life. The twenty-one capacities that are discussed in your passage refer to the twenty-one types of people who have directly perceived dharmatā. The worst sort of person has this experience but is lazy about developing it.

Astus wrote:
That requirement sounds like a unique one in dzogchen, since according to the sutras buddha-remembrance is enough. But, as you have mentioned, "it is all really a question of whether you trust what the Buddha has said".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
I wish to know the truth of the great matter.

Astus wrote:
About the great matter (大事):

"The Buddha Bhagavat appear in this world to cause sentient beings to aspire toward purity and the wisdom and insight of the buddhas. They appear in this world to manifest the wisdom and insight of the buddhas to sentient beings. They appear in this world to cause sentient beings to attain the wisdom and insight of a buddha’s enlightenment. They appear in this world in order to cause sentient beings to enter the path of the wisdom and insight of a buddha."
(Lotus Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 30)

So Huineng explains:

"The one great affair is the perceptual understanding of the buddhas. The people of this world are delusively attached to characteristics externally and delusively attached to emptiness internally. If one is able to transcend characteristics within characteristics and to transcend emptiness within emptiness, this is to be undeluded both externally and internally. If you are enlightened to this teaching, your mind will open up [in enlightenment] in a single moment of thought."
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK Edition, p 56)

White Lotus said:
Prove to me that the sudden way is superior.

Astus wrote:
The sudden way is pointing out that appearances are already empty, and there is no emptiness outside appearances. If one can confirm this immediately in one's personal experience, that is sudden. If one first needs to pursue studies, cultivate meditation, and abide by the precepts, that is gradual. The result is the same liberation from attachment through the realisation of no self, thus there is no point in talking about inferior and superior.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is rare anyone achieves Buddhahood in this lifetime. It is very common however for Vajrayāna practitioners to attain buddhahood at the point of death, or even in the bardo. It is even more common for Dzogchen practitioners to achieve buddhahood at the time of the death or in the bardo, and in the case of Dzogchen practitioners, provided they understand the teachings and practice in a precise way, it is certain they will never return to samsara again.
...
I was talking about the instructions for extremely lazy people.

Astus wrote:
If it is that complicated with Dzogchen, why not take the path to Sukhavati instead?

"The optimal case is to become a Buddha in one lifetime and with one body, or else to become a Buddha as a Dharmakaya at death, when the outer breath ceases. The middling case is to recall the meaning of the unified stages of generation and completion of one's present meditation at the time when one's body and mind separate, resulting in becoming a Buddha in the intermediate state as a Sambhogakaya, indivisible from one's chosen deity. There are said to be twenty-one ways to achieve the result of Buddhahood, corresponding to the specific faculties of individuals. The very least of them is called resting in a Nirmanakaya pure realm. It is said that by making prayers to take birth in a Buddha realm, you will be reborn there."
(Spacious Path to Freedom, p 198-199)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_hALAAAAYAAJ, https://books.google.com/books?id=58AKAAAAYAAJ, https://books.google.com/books?id=ASfYAAAAMAAJ are all representatives of mainstream Chinese Buddhism where it makes little sense to talk about PL and Zen as if they were separate traditions. It is more a question of emphasis in one's own practice. More on that read http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf2003.%20TP%20Chan%20and%20Pure%20Land.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
In the gradual; unfolding of prajna is "experiential". At different levels the mountain is seen differently. What does the sudden mean by saying the mountain is "proverbial"? Is nothing experienced other than things just as they are? What does the proverb mean?

Astus wrote:
Here is the proverb:

Chan teacher Qingyuan Weixin of Jizhou ascended the hall. "Thirty years ago, before this old monk practised Chan, I saw that mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When later I entered this abode and experienced personal knowledge, I saw that mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers. Today, as I attained rest in this abode, as before, I saw that mountains are merely mountains and rivers are merely rivers. People take these three views to be the same or to be different. If anyone can attain this, then he can personally see this old monk."
( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T51n2077_022#0614b29 )

Before aiming for liberation one grasps at phenomena, while aiming for liberation one rejects phenomena, and finally one is without grasping or rejection of phenomena. This is very much like the three truths in Tiantai and somewhat like the three natures in Yogacara.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2017 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
How do you see the mountain Astus?

Astus wrote:
Proverbial.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2017 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
dreambow said:
If I'm quiet and can hear the birds, my mind does not need to focus on the sounds. I can hear what is going on around me without labelling, labouring or needing to modify the awareness. It's just so. Nothing needs to be added or taken away from what is. If one appears to be  momentarily unaware its because the thoughts/emotions are veiling the awareness but awareness is still there.

Astus wrote:
A piece of rock do not and cannot make any effort. One does not have to nor can one make oneself hungry or thirsty, they occur nevertheless. That doesn't make any of that unconditioned.

Sensing what is going around is not any less illusory without labelling and paying attention. Happening is itself a process, all processes occur in time, and time is found only as a conventional concept. To put special importance on peaceful observation is grasping at an artificially elevated idea of calmness.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2017 at 6:23 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Tao said:
I'm not claiming that all tradicional zen masters applyed the same means. You can find gradual, sudden and directa approaches in different times.

Astus wrote:
Zen is not bound to any particular method, and in that it accords with the basic concept of skilful means.

Tao said:
You're missing nothing, you'r right and that kind of zen was totally lost, probably because of the lack of teachers able to do that...

Astus wrote:
If there were a simple, easy, and quick fix to suffering, wouldn't everyone be using that? The assumption of losing something presupposes there was something in the first place that could have been lost.

Tao said:
Gradual enlightenment: teaching that states that enlightenment is reached by polishing certain qualities on the individual getting closer and closer to buddhahood and finally gets there

Astus wrote:
Every path is gradual, otherwise it's not a path. On the other hand, since buddhahood is not a conditioned state, it cannot be a product of the path.

Tao said:
Sudden enlightenment: teaching that states that enlightenment is reached not by polishing anything, but suddenly recognizing its inherent buddhahood forever (and forever is relevant here).

Astus wrote:
That kind of sudden enlightenment has always been the norm. Even on the sravaka path one does not build or improve the four noble truths but recognises it.

Tao said:
Direct enlightenment: teaching that states that buddhahood is available here and now for anyone. There's no awakening needed. One moment you are an ordinary being and the next you're a Buddha

Astus wrote:
The availability is assured by the doctrine of buddha-nature. That no awakening is needed, that sounds like a naturalist fallacy.

Tao said:
some of their means are totally lost, like HuangBo LinJi and Co. sudden means

Astus wrote:
What means is it that is lost? Such texts are very much part of today's mainstream Chan.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2017 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus, taking the sudden approach: there is nothing to be seen or realised. Therefore sudden prajna is seeing things just as they are? The gradual unfolding of prajna is unnecessary unless one wants to be in a position to transcend sudden enlightenment - to go beyond emptiness. Thats only possible with the seeing eye of gradually unfolding Prajna. It seems to me that gradual and sudden are mixed nowadays. Rgds, Tom.

Astus wrote:
Ultimate wisdom is seeing things as they are. Getting there suddenly or gradually does not change the result.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
What do you think of Proffessor Suzuki's work? Ive never encountered a clearer exposition of Prajna than in his "Zen Doctrine of No Mind".

Astus wrote:
I haven't had the chance to read that book.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
prajna reveals appearances that rise and fall. The appearance of emptiness for example falls away.

Astus wrote:
I think there are some terminological problems here. Emptiness is not an appearance but merely a technical term in Buddhism.

White Lotus said:
Prajna is a gradual unveiling. Where i am now is: seeing "neither emptiness nor form". To identify with this would be an attachment. I dont identify with it. Is the tool of prajna unnecessary, in that it is part of the gradual path? Appearances cease.

Astus wrote:
Wisdom (prajna) has three levels: learning, understanding, confirming. Learning means learning about the words and letters of the Dharma. Understanding means understanding what is learnt. Confirming means confirming the teachings in one's personal experience. Therefore one should begin by the words of the sutras, shastras, and teachers. Without that basis in the authentic teaching there is no further progress.

White Lotus said:
Will i save myself unnecessary trouble if i just stop seeing and just live?

Astus wrote:
Relying on correct sources - sutras and teachers - is how you can save yourself from many unnecessary troubles.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and tathagatagarbha
Content:
Astus wrote:
MMK ch 22 discusses the nature of the Tathagata, and it is very much in line with the approach presented in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html and other early scriptures.

"The Tathāgata is neither identical with the skandhas nor distinct from the skandhas; the skandhas are not in him nor is he in them; he does not exist possessing the skandhas. What Tathāgata, then, is there?
...
Those who hypostatize the Buddha, who is beyond hypostatization and unwavering, they all, deceived by hypostatization, fail to see the Tathāgata. What is the intrinsic nature of the Tathāgata, that is the intrinsic nature of this world. The Tathāgata is devoid of intrinsic nature; this world is devoid of intrinsic nature."
(MMK 22.1, 15-16, tr Siderits)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
If i say that it is 'neither' eternal 'nor' annihilated. It is empty/thus. I am still using the fourth element of the tetralemma. Which expresses emptiness. How can we let go of the fourth element and be faithful to the middle path?

Astus wrote:
The reason emptiness is taught is to abandon attachment to appearances. To hang on to any ideological formulation is still taking concepts as essential and real.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
dreambow said:
Even when the mind is empty....you are still aware. Is awareness beyond or prior to fullness or emptiness? Awareness is the reference point.

Astus wrote:
The mind, just like everything else, is empty as it is. It is not made empty by any method or practice. As for awareness, it is a basic function of the conditioned mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus, if i said we cant say "self" because all is dependently originated would you object if i add: nor can we say no self because emptiness is pregnant? I dont understand this. Its just what i feel. Tung Shan said. "this now is not me; i now am this." he balances the equation and takes the middle path. We avoid extremes. Just so.

Astus wrote:
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation.

The middle taught in Buddhism means that both existence and annihilation are false. It doesn't mean there is an optimal combination or balance between those two false views. That is why all four elements of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi are rejected.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Thats my own experience; prajna, not logic.

Astus wrote:
Without logic it is merely senseless wordplay.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus i agree that emptiness is the abscence of form/substance; however one can also say that emptiness is form/substance. Two ways of seeing. Do you see emptiness as thus?

Astus wrote:
Substance means an independent essence, svabhava, while form (rupa) is something else. As for saying that emptiness is thus, what do you mean by that?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Tao said:
You got it in one second or you didnt... was that simple... nothing to do with koans even sharing every word... In fact is the complete opposite: spontaneity and intuition vs "studying/investigating"...

Astus wrote:
And why wouldn't one get it now then? By the way, get what?

Tao said:
Practice-realization as is Dzogchen are direct vehicles, not sudden. Because of that they implicity deny "awakening" (sudden approach) as they state that you can be "that" instantaneously, not even awakening is needed. And of course they "loose it" at the same speed, but that's another kind of discussion. But for sure Zen Soto is anything but sudden.

Astus wrote:
"To always practice wisdom in all places, at all times, and in all moments of thought, without stupidity—this is the practice of prajñā. A single moment’s stupidity and prajñā is eradicated, a single moment’s wisdom and prajñā is generated.
...
To practice in every moment of thought is called the true nature. To be enlightened to this Dharma is the Dharma of prajñā, to cultivate this practice is the practice of prajñā. To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body.
Good friends, ordinary people are buddhas, and the afflictions are bodhi. With a preceding moment of deluded thought, one was an ordinary person, but with a succeeding moment of enlightened thought, one is a buddha. To be attached to one’s sensory realms in a preceding moment of thought is affliction, but to transcend the realms in a succeeding moment of thought is bodhi."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 29-30)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Tao said:
that kind of zen was totally lost

Astus wrote:
Why would it be lost? First of all, stories in books are mostly fiction, so there is no point in expecting things like that in real life. Secondly, teachers still give teachings, and occasionally it may click something and bring about an insight.

Tao said:
Zen Soto, theoretically comes from sudden school, but it's everything but sudden. We can discuss if it's gradual or none of the two, but it's not sudden for sure.

Astus wrote:
Dogen taught practice-enlightenment, and as such it is very much in line with the sudden teaching. See this essay: http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8591/2498. And there was a nice thread about the matter as well: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=6498.

Tao said:
Zen Rinzai, uses koans that are just a pale and frozen reflection of the gold age teachings of Huineng, HuangBo or LinJi where every word was fresh, spontaneous and directed only to one target (only to one person in one situation), nothing simmilar to a koan (even if the words are exactly the same).

Astus wrote:
The teachings of Huineng and Linji are literary works, not actual records. Huangbo's record has been tampered with a bit but it's mostly as was remembered by his direct disciples. As for the stories with witty remarks, that's pure fiction. So, not that fresh after all. As for the practice of investigating the phrase (kanhua/kanna), that is as viable today as it was about 800 years ago. It is a matter of individual dedication to the method, just like in the past centuries.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
KarmaOcean said:
is a photon empty ?

Astus wrote:
All phenomena are empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Two understandings of emptiness: in emptiness there is neither attainment nor no attainment; it is thus. Or simply: there is no attainment in emptiness. "Thus" against "No".What would you choose. No thought on this matter? Tom.

Astus wrote:
In emptiness? Emptiness is not a place or a state, it means the absence of substance.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Would you say that the Buddha's cessation is also instantaneous because there has never been anything that could cease?

Astus wrote:
If there is nothing that ceases, how can its cessation be instantaneous?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus, thank you so much for your thorough reply. Enlightenment as you know is instantaneous. Why is cessation of the Vijnanas not needed to deepen experience? Is it even a distraction?

Astus wrote:
Vijnanas do not only cease every moment, they are actually unborn and unceasing. How could then they cause any problems?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
Astus, you quote from the BDK Platform Sutra p33-34. Here Hui Neng seems to indicate that the 6 vijnanas must be removed from the 6 sensory gates. Destruction of these six vijnanas occurs when the 6th "discriminating" mano-vijnana consciousness ceases. What is your view on that? Tom.

Astus wrote:
It doesn't exactly say that. Quite the opposite. Let's look at that section.

McRae translation:
"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."

BTTS translation:
"Merely purify your original mind and cause the six consciousnesses to go out the six gates, to be undefiled and unmixed among the six objects, to come and go freely and to penetrate without obstruction."

但淨本心 - only purify the original mind
使六識出六門 - to cause the six consciousnesses to go out the six gates
於六塵中無染無雜 - by the six dusts not defiled, not mixed with
來去自由 - come and go freely
通用無滯 - penetrate without obstruction

In other words, it says that while one is aware of appearances, one grasps nothing. It actually says to raise the six consciousnesses, not to remove or eradicate them. Also consider these preceding passages from the same chapter:

McRae:
"the ratiocination of the mind is vast and great, permeating the dharmadhātu (i.e., the cosmos). Functioning, it comprehensively and distinctly responds [to things]. Functioning, it knows everything. Everything is the one [mind], the one [mind] is everything. [With mind and dharmas] going and coming of themselves, the essence of the mind is without stagnation. This is ‘prajñā."

BTTS:
"the capacity of the mind is vast  and  great,  encompassing  the  Dharma  realm.  Its function  is  to  understand  clearly  and  distinctly.  Its correct  function  is  to  know  all.  All  is  one;  one  is  all. Coming   and   going   freely,   the   mind’s   substance   is unobstructed. That is Prajna."

心量廣大 - the ratiocination of the mind is vast and great / the capacity of the mind is vast  and  great
遍周法界 - permeating the dharmadhātu (i.e., the cosmos) / encompassing  the  Dharma  realm
用即了了分明 - Functioning, it comprehensively and distinctly responds [to things] / Its function  is  to  understand  clearly  and  distinctly
應用便知一切 -  Functioning, it knows everything / Its correct  function  is  to  know  all
一切即一 - Everything is the one [mind] /  All  is  one
一即一切 - the one [mind] is everything. / one  is  all
去來自由 - [With mind and dharmas] going and coming of themselves / Coming   and   going   freely
心體無滯 - the essence of the mind is without stagnation / the   mind’s   substance   is unobstructed
即是般若 - This is prajñā. / That is Prajna

McRae:
"one should not reside within or without, and one’s going and coming should be autonomous. One who is able to eradicate the mind of attachment will [attain] penetration unhindered. Those who are able to cultivate this practice are fundamentally no different from [what is described in] the Prajñā Sutra."

BTTS:
"the ability to cultivate the conduct of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly, of coming and going freely, of casting away the grasping mind, and of unobstructed penetration, is basically no different from The Prajna Sutra."

內外不住 - one should not reside within or without / the ability to cultivate the conduct (sentence from fifth line) of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly
去來自由 - and one’s going and coming should be autonomous / of coming and going freely
能除執心 -  One who is able to eradicate the mind of attachment / of casting away the grasping mind
通達無礙 - will [attain] penetration unhindered / and of unobstructed penetration
能修此行 - Those who are able to cultivate this practice / (sentence in first line)
與般若經本無差別 -  are fundamentally no different from [what is described in] the Prajñā Sutra / is basically no different from The Prajna Sutra


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Books on yogācāra
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1C4qAwAAQBAJ

http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/scripture-explication-underlying-meaning

http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/summary-great-vehicle-revised-second-edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=CkChrAwsvGkC
https://books.google.com/books?id=wHHAmlVPmrEC
https://books.google.com/books?id=ck4BrBqBdYIC
https://books.google.com/books?id=UC_YAAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=fQRUAAAAYAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=z8EKAAAAYAAJ

http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-8624-9780824835736.aspx

https://books.google.com/books?id=8yfYAAAAMAAJ
http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/three-texts-consciousness-only
https://books.google.com/books?id=j0TKAgAAQBAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=aPazBgAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=9ygVT2FA0h4C
https://books.google.com/books?id=ah2XR9be5uwC
https://books.google.com/books?id=Myq3AgAAQBAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
so having thoughts without becoming emotional? i have no experience of mind other than thought and feeling.

Astus wrote:
The point is not to suppress anything, but not to be fettered by whatever occurs. Thoughts and feelings alike come and go. Sticking to an idea or an emotion is where we get carried off and identify with various views and states, forgetting that nothing remains even for a moment.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
White Lotus said:
how do you understand "no thought"? Do you take it to mean that there is nothing to understand or realise? Or do you take it in Bodhidharma's sense of becoming "unconscious"? In the unconscious there is still some grasping/attachment.

Astus wrote:
No-thought (wunian 無念) means, in the words of the Platform Sutra, "in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached", "to be without thought in the context of thoughts", and "to remain undefiled within the sensory realms". It is the absence of grasping in the presence of thoughts coming from the recognition that thoughts are baseless.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
Thank you. I still see paradox but clearly this is due to my lack of understanding. It always ends up sounding like practicing is getting further away and the only way to really understand would be to not understand and be as far as possible from anything even remotely like practice.

Astus wrote:
The root problem is grasping. To grasp at any idea or explanation as the truth is still attachment. Hence the sudden way is to drop everything by recognising that all phenomena are inessential.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Astus wrote:
The defence of conventional existence seems to come from the idea that there are actual objects to define and explain. However, anything that can be discussed are nothing else but concepts, ideas, mere words and letters.

"It has been loudly declared by you that the whole world is only name (nāmamātra); separated from the word (that expresses it), that which is expressed does not exist. Therefore all dharmas have been shown (by you) to be only mental creation (kalpanāmātra); the mental creation itself, by which voidness is conceived, has been proclaimed (by you) to be non-existent."
(Nagarjuna: Acintyastava, v 35-36, tr Tola & Dragonetti)

Similarly, beings are bound by concepts.

"Ordinary beings are bound by conceptions (kalpana);
Since non-conceptualizing yogis will be liberated,
That which will reverse conceptions
Was taught by the wise as the effect of complete analysis."
(Candrakirti: Madhyamakavatara 6.117, tr Tsultrim & Jampa)

And what they need to be liberated from are this grasping at concepts.

"Liberation is attained through the destruction of actions and defilements; actions and defilements arise because of falsifying conceptualizations (vikalpa); those arise from hypostatization (prapañca); but hypostatization is extinguished in emptiness."
(MMK 18.5, tr Siderits)

That is why Madhyamaka is simply about eliminating that grasping.

"Analysis was not made in the treatise because of liking
Disputation. Thusness was indicated for complete liberation."
(Madhyamakavatara 6.118ab)

Establishing a valid conventional reality is not in line with this goal, as one can see this from the Vaidalyaprakarana as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
I am confused. It seems that any method whatsoever is gradual. The only way to not use a method would be to not practice at all. This is how my OP was formed; it seems the Zen of koans is where masters enlighten students directly with words and deeds, no practice on the student's part. Then today we practice sitting meditation. What am I missing?

Astus wrote:
A method is a means to an end, therefore it is gradual. Zen's teaching of sudden enlightenment stands for the means and the end are not two, hence the Platform Sutra talks about the oneness of samadhi and prajna, and Dogen talks about practice-enlightenment. But the key thing is to attain enlightenment, and with that true practice is attained as well. How can one attain enlightenment? Just by seeing that there is nothing to attain, as all the six sensory phenomena are already without anything to hold on to.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2016 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
Mustn't there be some kind of control deliberately exerted over ones meditative awareness? Otherwise meditation could be sitting and going over lists of things to do, planning, day dreaming, or any such thing.  Or am I misunderstanding something?

Astus wrote:
You're moving into the gradual method, in which case there are step by step instructions to follow. The only thing to practice on the sudden path is enlightenment itself.

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."
(Sun Face Buddha, p 63)

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


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Anders said:
I would expect karma to be presented in a less open-ended fashion, if it were the case that all that we do is pre-ordained. Buddhism seems to operate on the assumption that choices are open-ended to a certain extent.

Astus wrote:
There are two levels to consider. The conventional level (parikalpita) of individuals and the level of dharmas (paratantra). On the personal-conventional level, humans are free to decide. On the level of dharmas, the aggregates, it is all causally conditioned.Choices are based on already existing views and habits. The aggregates operate in a completely conditioned system, so there is no place for any free will, accidents, or uncertainty.

Anders said:
That is not strictly true though, as I recall. The Buddha's all knowledge pertains to all knowable phenomena. It explicitly does not pertain to unknowables. Which begs the question - Are all future events anywhen and anywhere theoretically knowable from this point in time? Or to rephrase - is the future wholly pre-ordained or not.

Astus wrote:
"Question. – What are all these dharmas cognized by omniscience?
Answer. –
...
‘All dharmas’ is also dharmas past (atīta), future (anāgata), present (pratyutpanna), neither past, future nor present ; dharmas belonging to the world of desire (kāmadhātvavacara), belonging to the world of form (rūpadhātvavacara), belonging to the formless world (ārūpyadhātvavacara), not having any membership (anavacara); dharmas coming from a good cause (kuśalahetusamutthāna), coming from a bad (akuśala) cause, coming from an indeterminate (avyākṛta) cause, and coming from a cause that is neither good, bad nor indeterminate; dharmas that are object condition (ālambanapratyaya), that are non-object condition, that are both object and non-object condition, that are neither object nor non-object condition. Innumerable similar groups of four dharmas comprise all the dharmas."
(MPPS, vol 4, p 1438, Gampo Abbey Edition)

PERFECT ACHIEVEMENT WISDOM (Krtyanusthanajnana)
"This mind has a bearing on all the dharmas of the three periods. In fact, the Buddhabhumi Sutra says that the Perfect Achievement Wisdom (Krtyanusthanajnana) manifests itself as innumerable and varied transformation bodies (Tathagatanirmanakayas) and their three varieties of deeds; that it assures. itself of the 84,000 states of mind of sentient beings; and that it perceives the past, the future, and the present."
(Cheng Weishi Lun, p 777-779, tr Tat)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Anders said:
Is Buddhism really deterministic though? Is it a Buddhist tenet that all future events are already pre ordained?

Astus wrote:
Causal conditionality is completely mechanical, hence deterministic. But since newer factors influence older ones, there is the possibility of enhancing or diminishing the effects of previous causes.

Anders said:
Or perhaps put another way - is there no future event whatsoever that is not knowable to the Buddha's omniscience, on account of not having been fully determined yet?

Astus wrote:
There is no limit to a buddha's knowledge of past and future karma, unlike in the case of bodhisattvas, sravakas, and others.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
Does one create a stance of deliberately watching things come and go?

Astus wrote:
Where would that stance be? And why watch them?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
Sounds paradoxical but clearly that is because I do not understand. How can one practice non thought while there are thoughts present? I am assuming "cause thought to be eradicated" is referencing traditional samadhi where thoughts are supressed and so without doing this how does one have non thought while thoughts are not supressed?

Astus wrote:
The point is not to proliferate thoughts (i.e. to grasp on an idea and start thinking about it), not to suppress thoughts (i.e. to enforce a blank mind), but to let whatever thought occurs come and then let it pass away by not following up on it or pushing it away. But trying to remain in a state one imagines to be non-thought, that is already an attachment. Rather, it should be clear that no thought can be manipulated, as they always come an go, just like every other appearance. That is how meditation and insight are not different.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
How does one do the sudden practice?

Astus wrote:
It is the practice of non-abiding and non-thought. In sitting peacefully, whatever bodily or mental experience occurs, there is neither rejection nor attachment, neither suppression nor obsession, neither important nor unimportant. It is immediately recognised that all phenomena of the six senses do not stay even for a moment, thus there is nothing to do, nothing to attain. This is the essential method of all the buddhas and teachers.

"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.
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, BDK Edition, p 33-34)

"Good friends, since the past this teaching of ours has first taken nonthought as its central doctrine, the formless as its essence, and nonabiding as its fundamental. The formless is to transcend characteristics within the context of characteristics. Nonthought is to be without thought in the context of thoughts. Nonabiding is to consider in one’s fundamental nature that all worldly [things] are empty, with no consideration of retaliation—whether good or evil, pleasant or ugly, and enemy or friend, etc., during times of words, fights, and disputation.
Within continuing moments of thought one should not think of the previous [mental] realm. If one thinks of the previous thought, the present thought, and the later thought, one’s thoughts will be continuous without cease. This is called ‘fettered.’ If one’s thoughts do not abide in the dharmas, this is to be ‘unfettered.’ Thus it is that nonabiding is taken as the fundamental.
Good friends, to transcend all the characteristics externally is called the formless. To be able to transcend characteristics is for the essences of the dharmas to be pure. Thus it is that the formless is taken as the essence.
Good friends, for one’s mind to remain undefiled within the sensory realms is called nonthought. Within one’s own thoughts one should always transcend the realms, one should not generate the mind relative to the realms. If one does not think of the hundred things, then thoughts will be completely eliminated."
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK Edition, p 43-44)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Dgj said:
but then, what is practice?

Astus wrote:
There is the gradual and there is the sudden path. The gradual practice leading to insight is disciple, meditation, and wisdom, also the six paramitas. The sudden practice is insight itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Sudden Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sudden enlightenment is to recognise that there is nothing to grasp, nothing to attain. Such recognition is missed because of chasing all sorts of illusory thoughts instead of taking a look at thoughts and seeing them to be completely unreliable. Thus all the teachings and methods to entertain oneself with in the hope of one day gaining something special. And as long as there is hope there is also delusion.

"Then again, if the bodhisattva refrains from taking up the practice of any particular dharma, because he does not apprehend any dharma whatsoever, he may thereby succeed in realizing prajñāpāramitā."
(Nagarjuna on the Six Perfections, ch 30)

"To simply right now suddenly comprehend that one’s own mind is fundamentally Buddha, without there being a single dharma one can attain and without there being a single practice one can cultivate—this is the insurpassable enlightenment, this is the Buddha of suchness."
(Huangbo, Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 20)

Q: What is Sudden Enlightenment? 
A: "Sudden" means instantly stopping false thought. "Enlightenment" means that one attains nothing.
(Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment, tr Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
Meido said:
I mentioned it only to show that it is a valid question which others have had, and worth examining within the context of one's own practice.

Astus wrote:
Certainly a good point.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That would seem to rule out scientific discovery, though. Many things that were not at al apparent through the six sense gates have been discovered by a process of conjecture, analysis, observation and experiment.

Astus wrote:
It does not rule it out, as the atomic theory is accepted to some extent, even though neither atoms nor the four great elements are visible. On the other hand, Buddhism does not aim at scientific discovery nor is it considered a liberating path.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
Meido said:
In any case, Dogen's motivation was fueled by a question very similar to what you asked...a koan of sorts. You might be interested to look into it.

Astus wrote:
That alleged question is not mentioned even in Keizan's Denkoroku, and the story of sudden realisation in Keizan's work is likely his own invention that is nowhere corroborated in Dogen's teachings. Quite the opposite actually, Dogen did not agree with the whole idea of kensho, as it contradicts his version of zazen as practice-enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
I believe the argument you may be encountering in Madhyamika philosophy is actually this: “all of our possible models that we use to try to explain how things work are at some level broken and flawed” if we consider the things to be fully existent on their own right.

Astus wrote:
It should be noted that things not only do not exist on their own (svabhava) but they also do not exist on another (parabhava). Even saying that things exist at all is wrong.

"Given the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, how will there be extrinsic nature (parabhāva)?
For extrinsic nature is said to be the intrinsic nature of another existent (parabhāva).
Further, without intrinsic nature and extrinsic nature how can there be an existent (bhāva)?
For an existent is established given the existence of either intrinsic nature or extrinsic nature."
(Nagarjuna: Mulamadhyamakakarika 15.3-4, tr Siderits)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Matt J said:
So here's a question: how do we go from stating that I cannot find x, which is an epistemological  statement, to there is no x, which is an ontological one? Why isn't it possible for to exist in a way we don't know? It is one thing you say I cannot find x and quite another to say there is no x. It is similar to subjective idealists who say there is only mind because we cannot experience anything apart from mind.

Astus wrote:
The field of analysis/investigation for Buddhism is the five aggregates and six sensory areas, because that is where suffering arises, not to mention that that's all there is in terms of human experience. So, if something is not found in one's perception, it is not there, as an unperceived perception is quite impossible.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Well, that's exactly it, Astus. Both mind and matter are empty of inherent existence, so there is no need to reify one and negate the other. In other words, there is no need to go to the extremes of either materialism or solipsism.

Astus wrote:
It is not only not falling into the extremes of only matter or only mind, but also not establishing both at the same time.

"If an object exists because of the power of cognition, how does one arrive at the true existence of cognition? If cognition exists because of the power of the object of cognition, how does one arrive at the true existence of the object of cognition? If their existence is due to their mutual power, neither can exist."
(Bodhicaryavatara 9.111-112, tr Wallace)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 5:55 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
For example, if we measure the position of, say, an electron, we will find it as a particle in one particular position. If, however, we do not make an actual measurement, the electron actually does not even “decide” where it is!

Astus wrote:
If there is a cat in a room, unless I look into the room, how could I know where the cat is?

Kenneth Chan said:
That’s where Madhyamika philosophy comes in. If we replace this philosophical framework of a mind-matter duality with the Madhyamaka view of reality, the problem can actually be solved. And it can be solved without having to insert all sorts of additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions (including bizarre ones like infinite parallel universes, and so on) into the basic formulation of quantum mechanics.

Astus wrote:
And this is the questionable part, that what you call "the Madhyamaka view of reality" is not Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka has no problem with the conventional mind-matter duality, while ultimately it shows that neither can be established as real.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Teachings on the two truths—the conventional truth and the ultimate truth—are actually very important in Madhyamika philosophy.

Astus wrote:
And what conventional truth do you find in Madhyamaka that supports your thesis?

Kenneth Chan said:
No. They have the same ontological status because they are both empty of inherent existence.

Astus wrote:
The mere lack of something is not an ontological status. They are also empty of horns and wheels.

Kenneth Chan said:
It is the Prasangika Madhyamaka according to Chandrakirti, Shantideva, and Lama Tsongkhapa.

Astus wrote:
What is specifically in their teachings that you find uniquely relevant in this case? Anything in particular about conventional truth?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 6:04 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
What I actually said was that I have to talk about the conscious observer along the lines of the conventional truth because my purpose here is to provide a solution to the mystery of quantum physics. And what I actually said about mind and matter is that they have the same ontological status (not that they are ontologically identical) and because of that, there is no need to reify one while having to negate the other. In other words, there is no need to go to either extremes of materialism or solipsism.

Astus wrote:
"conscious observer along the lines of the conventional truth" - what conventional truth is that? Whose conventional truth? I don't see the connection here to Madhyamaka.

"mind and matter is that they have the same ontological status (not that they are ontologically identical)" - the same ontological status can be "existent" or "non-existent", but "empty" is the absence of both, the absence of ontological status. And since you want both mind and matter to be equally present, it seems to me the same ontological status here is "existent".

Kenneth Chan said:
The Prasangika Madhyamaka view on dependent origination and emptiness is slightly different from the views of the other schools. So all I am doing is to make use of the meaning of dependent origination and emptiness according to the Prasangika Madhyamaka view. Please try to understand me correctly.

Astus wrote:
Could you specify what unique Prasangika doctrine you refer to?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
DGA said:
Dgj was asking for leads on how to practice koan

Astus wrote:
There he asked not on the Dahui method but the other one. And for the practice of kanhua chan, I'd first recommend this: http://koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=3020.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
While this uses the Madhyamaka view of reality, my purpose is not primarily to provide an exposition on Madhyamaka. ... I am arguing that the conscious observer does have a role to play in quantum physics. That’s all.

Astus wrote:
You say that Madhyamaka establishes the valid use of the conscious observer. I see no reason for that. In fact, the paper does not provide a reason for it either, only that because both matter and mind are empty they should be considered ontologically identical in the ultimate sense. And that actually contradicts your assumed application of Madhyamaka on a conventional level, since conventionally matter and mind are very much different even in Madhyamaka.

And if we consider this a bit, you want to establish a conscious observer separate from matter, with the argument that they are ontologically identical and dependently related. That is somewhat of a contradiction. If mind and matter are ontologically no different, there is no need to say either of the two are separate, hence both materialism and solipsism should be acceptable. And if they are dependently related, it could be said that mind originates from matter, or vice versa, hence accepted a materialist/idealist perspective. This again shows that merely stating dependent origination and emptiness is insufficient to qualify for a Madhyamika view.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
DGA said:
if you want to practice Zen generally (inclusive of koan practice), the way to do it is with a competent teacher.

Astus wrote:
I said nothing regarding koan practice, besides that it was initiated by Dahui.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
Dgj said:
Is there a book that covers the history of this and are there any that cover how to practice using the older method in addition to the Shobogenzo?

Astus wrote:
Morten Schlutter: How Zen Became Zen - this is a good introduction on early Song era Chan developments.

As for practice, you simply need to study the stories and commentaries. If you want meditation, you do zazen.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
So can you kindly let us know now whether you think it is actually Madhyamaka or just my personal interpretation, and why you think that?

Astus wrote:
I think I have answered both already. It does look like your interpretation, and the reason is that it does not follow the Madhyamika teachings, nor does it attempt to follow through with Madhyamika reasoning.

Kenneth Chan said:
Please understand that I am here conveying my meaning along the lines of the conventional truth.

Astus wrote:
Because it is the conventional truth, Madhyamaka, especially its Prasangika form, does not posit anything related to that, because it is not its purpose. Dependent origination and emptiness are not unique teachings of Madhyamaka at all, but practically universal in every Buddhist school.

Kenneth Chan said:
They are certainly not merely trying to say that the role of the conscious observer is empty of inherent existence. They are actually trying to say that the role of the conscious observer does not exist at all.

Astus wrote:
It is irrelevant for a Madhyamika whether they believe in an observer or not. The usual Madhyamika approach is to dissolve whatever view the opponent holds, and not to introduce other views. Or if it introduces other views, those are in line with established Buddhist doctrines and worldly conventions. I see no basis to defend the idea of a conscious observer on merely positing dependent origination and emptiness, since those principles are applicable even in a purely materialist view.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 6:22 PM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
Dgj said:
Could you elaborate please?

Astus wrote:
The teaching of kanhua chan, where one uses a phrase to elicit doubt and through doubt a breakthrough, is a technique introduced by Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) and further elaborated by Gaofeng Yuanmiao (1238-1295). The Blue Cliff Record (Biyanlu) and the Book of Serenity (Congronglu) present the previous state of Chan that was named wenzi (literary) chan. Dogen disagreed with and criticised Dahui's innovation and followed the practice of the older tradition of composing expositions on stories, and such works make up a good part of the Shobogenzo. Therefore those are the sources you may turn to that do not follow the kanhua method.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 5:52 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
It is actually this insistence on materialism that has led to the vast array of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, all aimed at negating the role of the conscious observer.

Astus wrote:
Madhyamaka does not posit the necessity of a conscious observer. In fact, you could say that assuming an observer is already falling into false views, as discussed in chapter 3 of the MMK.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Well, I suggest you actually read my paper, and let me know whether you think it is actually Madhyamaka or just my personal interpretation, and why you think that. I am certainly open to discussing this.

Astus wrote:
I had read your paper before my first post here and responded on it based on that.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Koan study
Content:
Dgj said:
are there any teachings out there in which one can study koan in a more neutral or even pleasant way?

Astus wrote:
The Blue Cliff Record, the Book of Serenity, and numerous writings of Dogen are like that.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
based on the Prasangika Madhyamaka view of reality

Astus wrote:
That is the point I am questioning, if it is actually Madhyamaka, or rather a personal reinterpretation that is inspired by elements of Madhyamaka.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
You need to explain why you say that Madhyamaka is not the solution here.

Astus wrote:
Because it does not deal with the mechanics of consciousness or perception. Its primary purpose lies in the field of eliminating views, and not in establishing conventional interpretations.

Kenneth Chan said:
in terms of the Prasangika Madhyamaka view

Astus wrote:
Prasanga is a technique of refutation, not affirmation.

Kenneth Chan said:
Nonetheless they are still very different from Madhyamika philosophy.

Astus wrote:
I take them to be better fitted for the whole purpose, first of all because those are philosophies, while Madhyamaka isn't.

Kenneth Chan said:
their thinking is still grounded on the basic mind-matter dualism.

Astus wrote:
One could see the same dualism in Madhyamaka as well, as far as the teaching of nama-rupa is very much accepted in its conventional application. On the other hand, even in the Nikayas the dualism (jiva-sarira) is denied.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The essential point is that ultimately there is no difference  between mind and matter. Matter is mere appearance to mind.

Astus wrote:
If there were no difference, then mind is a mere appearance to matter, or it's all just matter, or just mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
The only point that I am making, here, is that since both mind and matter have the same ontological status, there is no need to reify one while negating the other. That's all.

Astus wrote:
And my point is that Madhyamaka is not the solution here.

Kenneth Chan said:
into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality.

Astus wrote:
And my second point, that it is not the prevailing Western philosophical view. This issue has already been addressed by Kant over 200 years ago.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2016 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Astus wrote:
"According to Madhyamika philosophy, objects only exist in dependence upon causes and conditions, and in dependence upon the mind that apprehends it."

Because of dependent origination there is no origination of anything, only in a nominal, conventional sense. Furthermore, Madhyamaka is not the one to posit a perceiver.

"The reason that quantum mechanics reinforces the Madhyamaka view is simply the fact that alternative views, like a mind-matter duality, or either the extremes of materialism or solipsism, actually lead to serious interpretation problems."

European philosophy produced some developments beyond Descartes. I recommend you check on Kant's transcendental philosophy and Husserl's phenomenology.

"both mind and matter are empty of inherent existence, both mind and matter have the same ontological status"

Things are defined by their function, not whether they have an inherent existence or not, therefore emptiness does not serve as a sufficient basis to eliminate the difference between mind and matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 4th, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, experience is always conceptual. One has to be conceptually aware of something for to to be one's experience.

Astus wrote:
Consciousness is separated into six types based on its object. Concepts exist only for mental consciousness, not the other five. What is it you call when the five sensory consciousnesses occur if not experience? As for what conceiving is, the Kosha (vol 1, p 72-73) writes:

"Ideas consist of the grasping of characteristics.
The grasping of the diverse natures—perceiving that this is blue, yellow, long, short, male, female, friend, enemy, agreeable, disagreeable,
etc. — is samjnaskandha. One can distinguish six types of samjna, according to organ, as for sensation."

Do you have to conceive everything that occurs to your senses, or is it only just a select few that you actually think of when you pay attention to it? If it is the latter, then do those other sensory phenomena occur or not? If they do, then there are instances of sensory consciousnesses present without any concepts. Furthermore, when you actually look at an object, and you even name it, can you still tell the difference between what appears as visual object and what as a name for that object? If yes, then visual consciousness and mental consciousness can work together without being mixed up or collapsed into a single thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 4th, 2016 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
This illustrates my point nicely.

Astus wrote:
It does illustrate the role of concepts in experience, but it also shows the presence of experience without conceptualisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 2nd, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
Awareness of our environment is a conceptual picture built up through familiarization.

Astus wrote:
There are several unknown elements even in a familiar environment, and much more in an unfamiliar one. Walking on the street or in a forest does not require one to notice everything that one sees, hears, and smells, still they are present as experiences. Or when one visits a new neighbour's home and sits in their living room there can be unknown objects all around, and even those that are familiar are not paid attention to during a conversation, but at the same time one does see them there, and if one wants to it's possible to recall the room later. Or when for instance one is unexpectedly talked to, and when the words were spoken they were not comprehended, but when they're recalled right after that they become understandable.

Malcolm said:
No one lives in the moment, apart from babies, who have not yet developed the conceptual framework to start organizing their direct perceptions into conceptual patterns and frames of reference.

Astus wrote:
The point is not about living in the moment, but that the sensory consciousness are present in one's experience. One can see the colour and name the colour, and those are two different things, hence the basic set of nama-rupa. In your presentation there is only nama and no rupa.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 2nd, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
Secondly, direct perceptions are by definition nonconceptual, and are only experienced when they are coordinated through second order conceptual identification such as "this is blue," "this is red," and so on. We have many direct perceptions everyday which we never experience because we never notice them.

Astus wrote:
Do you say that one cannot be aware of one's environment without taking note of each element? That would make life quite difficult.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 2nd, 2016 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The point is, if liberation comprises the ending of identification with the sense-gates, then what is there to experience? Thinking that there is an experience to be had is one of the hindrances, isn't it?

Astus wrote:
Right, liberation is not in phenomena, nor is it anywhere else; it's not an experience, but just not grasping any experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I actually agree that experience is conceptual. That is one of the reasons that 'experience' and 'realisation' are different (as explained by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche in Mind at Ease). I think that is why the realised beings are fathomless - because experience never 'sticks' or gets recorded, they live solely in the 'domain of realisation', which is beyond the experiential domain.

Astus wrote:
If realisation is not experienced, it is separate from it, hence the two has no connection and run parallel to each other, and that view cancels the possibility of liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2016 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you have become a substance dualist? Amazing.

Astus wrote:
I am merely curious how you synchronise your idea of all experiences being conceptual with the teachings, where for instance the teachings on the dhatus do not seem to agree with that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2016 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
That consciousness is nonconceptual is not even slightly debatable. Conceptuality, and hence, experience, is the function of the caittas. Cittas are nonconceptual.

Astus wrote:
The physical senses and their objects are neither mind nor mental phenomena. In other words, 10 of the 18 realms are not even mental, and the 5 sensory consciousnesses are not mental phenomena, consequently the 15 dhatus related to the form aggregate cannot be conceptual. If you say that the five matter related functions of mind do not occur on their own, then you assume there are two instances of consciousness at the same time.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So in a way, the question 'is there nothing else?', is an unseemly question. I think Ven. Sariputta's answer amounts to: go find out!

Astus wrote:
Not at all. Since the Buddha has no identification with the aggregates, there is nothing left to identify him with. There are four discussions on the matter between Sariputta and Kotthita: SN 44.3-6. Furthermore, the Buddha himself clarified this in the preceding teaching as well (SN 44.2). To assume that there is anything beyond the aggregates, that is one of the four versions of self-view. In other words, there is nothing more to find out.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
In order for something to be experienced, it has to be noticed by the mind.

Astus wrote:
Then you're saying that the sensory consciousnesses do not exist, so there is only one sensory area, in which case it makes no sense to list six. But then, you should not have written that the sensory consciousnesses are non-conceptual. Furthermore, then what is the difference between visual perception and thoughts? Even Yogacara accepts the five sensory phenomena as distinct from thoughts.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I would be interested in interpretations of this Sutta.

Astus wrote:
"the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media" - it refers to parinibbana (as noted by Bhikkhu Bodhi), hence the explanation given there agrees with the answer provided regarding the Tathagata's fate after death. It is different from the remainderless end of ignorance, craving and suffering, whereby the sensory functions are still there.

"How is it, friend Sariputta, is the eye the fetter of forms or are forms the fetter of the eye? Is the ear the fetter of sounds or are sounds the fetter of the ear? ... Is the mind the fetter of mental phenomena or are mental phenomena the fetter of the mind?"
"Friend Kotthita, the eye is not the fetter of forms nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds nor are sounds the fetter of the ear, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there ... The mind is not the fetter of mental phenomena nor are mental phenomena the fetter of the mind, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there.
...
In this way too, friend, it may be understood how that is so: There exists in the Blessed One the eye, the Blessed One sees a form with the eye, yet there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind. There exists in the Blessed One the ear, the Blessed One hears a sound with the ear ... There exists in the Blessed One the nose, the Blessed One smells an odour with the nose . . . There exists in the Blessed One the tongue, the Blessed One savours a taste with the tongue ...There exists in the Blessed One the body, the Blessed One feels a tactile object with the body ... There exists in the Blessed One the mind, the Blessed One cognizes a mental phenomenon with the mind, yet there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind."
(SN 35.232, tr BB)

But we might interpret the sutta as no different from another teaching on the cessation of suffering as well, since there are instances where only the six bases are used:

"Venerable sir, who craves?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One replied. "I do not say, 'One craves.' If I should say, 'One craves,' in that case this would be a valid question: 'Venerable sir, who craves?' But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, 'Venerable sir, with what as condition does craving [come to be]?' this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: 'With feeling as condition, craving [comes to be]; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence ... Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. '
"But, Phagguna, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact comes cessation of contact; with the cessation o{contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering."
(SN 12.12, tr BB)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, actually we don't experience the content of the five sense consciousness without conceptual layer. Experience is always conceptual.

Astus wrote:
What do you call then all the sensory phenomena that occur even while one is focused on a single object, or while one is thinking about something? Are they not experiences? Or do you think that one thinks about them at the same time?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Dgj said:
But doesn't dependent origination apply here?

Astus wrote:
It is exactly here that it applies. Note that the six sensory areas are simply an easy categorisation of phenomena experiences, it is not that there are actually areas.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Malcolm said:
And in fact there is no experience beyond mind, given that the other five sense consciousness are totally nonconceptual, and thus not experiences per se.

Astus wrote:
One still experiences sights, sounds, etc. even without a conceptual layer, so I rather differentiate the two.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Dgj said:
Could you elaborate on this idea from a Buddhist perspective? There is only body and mind? As in just the immediate body and mind one is experiencing, singular? Or that there are only bodies and minds in general, ie no things or other realities, just many minds and bodies interacting and trees, rocks, houses, etc. are not real?

Astus wrote:
All experiences fall within the six sensory areas: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thoughts. The first five are the physical and the sixth is the mental. There is no experience beyond these six.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Dgj said:
Are you implying that there is some way to pin down a Buddha outside of the aggregates?

Astus wrote:
No, I do not imply that. Even assuming that there is something beyond body and mind is unfounded.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 29th, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened individuals as impossible to pin down linguistically
Content:
Astus wrote:
Bondage is attachment to and identification with the five aggregates. Liberation is the cessation of attachment and identification. It is in that context that the Tathagata cannot be pinned down. See: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 29th, 2016 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Combining Shingon and Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen schools have their own set of daily rituals. If you exchange that to those used in a Shingon school, from the Zen point of view at least, there is no problem. However, if you want to follow Shingon on a deeper level, you should probably get in touch with an actual community and study with them. Also you may have noticed this before that the Chinese rituals usually include some tantric elements.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 28th, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
So Zen is not beyond meaning and concepts, Zen is meaning and concepts? Otherwise that would mean that Zen is nothing. If there is nothing beyond meaning and concepts and Zen is beyond meaning and concepts then Zen is nothing. But I don't believe that is what you are saying, unless I'm mistaken? Is this the "suchness" or "thusness" spoken of sometimes in Zen?

Astus wrote:
Zen is a word, so it has various meanings. A meaning beyond meaning sounds like a pointless complication. Zen implies a set of teachings, and teachings are necessarily conceptual. And if what you're looking for is a simple and ultimate definition of Zen, that is again necessarily conceptual, even if you assume it to be something beyond concepts.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 28th, 2016 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
now you are saying all meanings and concepts are illusory. ... Scripture is made up of meanings and concepts. Zen is beyond meanings and concepts.

Astus wrote:
There is nothing beyond meanings and concepts. There are only concepts. The difference is whether one takes concepts to be substantial or sees them to be contextual.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 28th, 2016 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
Is this correct?

Astus wrote:
It sounds like to try to find a state or essence as the ultimate meaning, and that approach is the wrong one. The final word is simply that all words are contextual, there is no meaning outside context. Since not one word carries meaning, how could many meaningless concepts create meaning? That's how all meanings, all concepts are illusory and insubstantial. To grasp at affirmation, negation, both, or neither, all four are mistakes.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 27th, 2016 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
Sorry, without the quoted posts it is too complicated to explain. It is listed in the post between you and I above where everything is quoted. The statements like the one where it was said "not Buddha not mind" and you agreed this actually means "is Buddha and is mind" but not to be attached to the view of this". How would the person who said "not Buddha not mind" respond to this which is said to be, in spirit, in agreement but is literally the exact opposite of what was said?

Astus wrote:
The Diamond Sutra teaches in the mode of "X is not X therefore it is X". So, a buddha is not a buddha, therefore it is called a buddha. The point is to recognise the absence of self in appearances. One should not create a view out of either "not Buddha not mind" nor "is Buddha is mind". As it is often said, the view of existence is one extreme, and the view of annihilation is another extreme - exactly because both supposes a substance, a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 27th, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
How do you think the people who said these things would respond to these explanations that are said to be in spirit in agreement with their statements but literally are exactly the opposite of what they said?

Astus wrote:
Please clarify your question. What explanations agree and/or oppose what?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 27th, 2016 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
So "not Buddha not mind" means "is Buddha and is mind" but not to be attached to the view of this and "outside scripture" means "inside scripture" but not to be attached to views?

Astus wrote:
Yes, you could say so.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 27th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
Okay so it is not beyond ALL views, just all non-Buddhist views?

Astus wrote:
There are incorrect views, and there is the correct view. The correct view is the one that leads to freedom from attachments, the first element of the noble eightfold path.

Dgj said:
How is all the insistence on a special transmission outside scriptures and not Buddha not mind stuff explained?

Astus wrote:
Special transmission outside teachings means not to be attached to views. Not Buddha and not mind means not to be attached to views. It is because attachment leads to suffering, and suffering is the problem that needs to be ended.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 26th, 2016 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Dgj said:
Okay thank you. What am I thinking of then? What religion or philosophy is said to be beyond literally everything and one-hundred percent impossible to pin down? That absolutely no words or descriptions can hold and that have no grounding or explanation anywhere? Completely and utterly transcendent? I thought it was Zen, being that Buddha is said to be mind in the scriptures and we have Zen masters saying it is not Buddha and not mind, it seemed like this meant they were pointing to something beyond both distinctions. Any ideas?

Astus wrote:
If it is a view (teaching, doctrine, philosophy, religion, etc.), it is a set of concepts. Zen, and Buddhism in general, teaches that concepts are interdependent and insubstantial. Realising that concepts are empty is how one eliminates attachment to views, and, in a manner of speaking, attains no-view, and that is what could be called beyond views.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 26th, 2016 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: How do buddhas contact people?
Content:
Luke said:
I don't know if I consider Shakyamuni Buddha as "absolutely real" (I am not sure about what the definition of that would be) but I do consider him "as real as Charlemagne was" because there is historical evidence for the existence of both.

Astus wrote:
And those are concepts as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 26th, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Zen teachings
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The transmission of the mind by the World Honored One at three sites is the gist of Seon; what was spoken by him over his lifetime80 is the gate of Doctrine. Therefore it is said, “Seon is the Buddha mind; Doctrine is the Buddha word.”"
(Hyujeong: Seonga gwigam, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 58)

Koans are literary products of Chinese Buddhist teachers, meant for the educated elite of monastics and literati. In practice, the method of kanna zen is using a phrase to cease conceptualisation and recognise the nature of mind. The literary and the practical sides are related but not identical, hence the differentiation between literary/monji zen (wenzi chan 文字禪) and kanna zen (kanhua chan 看話禪). However, both are meant to deliver the meaning of the Buddha's teaching and nothing else.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 26th, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Does the "Northern School" still exist today?
Content:
Temicco said:
That's surprising to hear about the Breakthrough Sermon; do you know how it was determined that it's actually a Northern School text?
And what book would talk about it? McRae's The Northern School?

Astus wrote:
Yes, it's in McRae's work, p 207-209.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 12th, 2016 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible that Bodhidharma and Buddhabhadra's histories are mixed together?
Content:
Dgj said:
"The Shaolin Monastery" pages 35-36 tell the story found in a Tang source, about Buddhabhadra's disciple Sengchou being a martial artist.

Astus wrote:
Not exactly. Shaolin monks may have engaged in military activities, but that is far from what is today called martial art. Furthermore, the story there only talks of extraordinary strength gained through an encounter with Vajrapani.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 12th, 2016 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible that Bodhidharma and Buddhabhadra's histories are mixed together?
Content:
Dgj said:
Do you think I should reword it?

Astus wrote:
No need.

Dgj said:
Buddhabhadra came from India, taught Dhyana (Zen), became the first abbot of Shaolin Temple and some of his first students were martial arts masters.

Astus wrote:
What records are there of that Buddhabhadra? Fotuo meditation teacher ( http://authority.ddbc.edu.tw/person/?fromInner=A000441 ) appears in the Continued Record of Eminent Monks (vol http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T50n2060_016 & http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/en/T50n2060_021 ), but there seems to be no mention of martial arts.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Does the "Northern School" still exist today?
Content:
Dgj said:
What about Shikantaza? It seems a bit similar to the sitting practiced by the "Northern School".

Astus wrote:
Shikantaza is Dogen's reinterpretation of Changlu Zongze's seated meditation, that goes back to Guifeng Zongmi's description of Zen practice, and that goes back to Heze Shenhui's teachings on no-thought. So it is not Northern school.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Does the "Northern School" still exist today?
Content:
Dgj said:
If not, are there any schools that are very similar to it? A school or schools that teach similar to what was taught by Yuquan Shenxiu?

Astus wrote:
Disciples of Shenxiu disappeared by the end the of Tang era - i.e. people who claimed to be descendants of a lineage from him. But as for the doctrinal and practical part, the so called Northern School represent the earliest phase of Chan, consequently it is the ancestor of all later schools. For instance, works like the Breakthrough Sermon of Bodhidharma, and the Essentials of Cultivating the Mind by Hongren are actually teachings of the Northern School.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2016 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Is it possible that Bodhidharma and Buddhabhadra's histories are mixed together?
Content:
Dgj said:
Bodhidharma came from India, taught Dhyana (Zen), became the abbot of Shaolin Temple and taught the Shaolin monks some form of calisthenics that lead to the creation of Shaolin Kung Fu.

Astus wrote:
The legends of Bodhidharma are centuries later than his alleged arrival to China. First martial arts book attributed to Bodhidharma was made in 1642. Even the association of martial arts with Shaolin goes back only to the 13th century. See for reference McRae's "Seeing through Zen", p 26.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 9th, 2016 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism is medicine, not metaphysics
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism is medicine according to its self-interpretation, and that view is based on a number of metaphysical assumptions, like any view.

Might as well say that it is through accepting the metaphysical view of Buddhism that one cures oneself from all the other views that do not agree with the Buddha's.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 7th, 2016 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Other examples of stories to be taken as literal or non literal.
Content:
Astus wrote:
No story should be taken literally.

Haut flung the crust of the bread he had been gnawing on into the hearth, but as there was no fire the crust simply fell among the wet sticks and soaked logs. The Jaghut frowned. ‘With your vicious and incessant assault upon my natural equanimity, you force upon me the necessity of a tale, and I so dislike telling a tale. Now, hostage, why should that be so?’
‘I thought I was the one asking questions.’
Haut waved a hand in dismissal. ‘If that conceit comforts you, so be it. I am not altered in my resolve. Now tell me, why do I dislike tales?’
‘Because they imply a unity that does not exist. Only rarely does a life have a theme, and even then such themes exist in confusion and uncertainty, and are only described by others once that life has come to an end. A tale is the binding of themes to a past, because no tale can be told as it is happening.’
(Steven Erikson: Forge of Darkness, p 513)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
When it comes to Buddhism, purity or impurity is defined as the presence or absence of delusion and their imprints perhaps? If minds are deluded, they are impure. If actions are motivated by delusions, they are impure. Only Buddha has a completely pure mind which is free from the two obstructions. The presence of delusions and their imprints distort our perceptions and create mistaken appearances.

Astus wrote:
Delusion is the mistake of substantiality. With the removal of that error, all are seen to be empty, hence there is no more grasping. As for appearances, it changes nothing but one's attitude towards them, where before one viewed them as self or possessions of self, after they are seen without such superimposition.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2016 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Malcolm said:
But there is nothing in regular sūtra to suggest that a buddha perceives only pure appearances.

Astus wrote:
What makes something pure and something impure?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
conebeckham said:
He does not negate appearances.  Nor does he claim appearances, as such, "change."

Astus wrote:
"Hence, the ultimate wrong conceptual consciousness that conceives the object of negation is the innate ignorance which is the first of the twelve factors of dependent-arising. Acquired objects of negation are merely superimpositions based on this. Thus, it is not at all the case that reason negates all of the cognitive processes through which non-conceptual consciousnesses - e.g., sensory consciousnesses - apprehend things. Therefore, only conceptual mental consciousnesses have cognitive processes that are negated by reason; more specifically, reason refutes the cognitive processes of the two conceptions of self and the cognitive processes of those conceptual consciousnesses that superimpose further attributes on objects that have been imputed by those two conceptions of self. It is not that reason refutes the cognitive processes of all conceptual consciousnesses of any kind."
(Tsongkhapa: The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path, vol 3, p 212)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
conebeckham said:
It is ignorance of the appearance's true nature, and not the appearances themselves, which is the problem.

Astus wrote:
"What is this delusion like? It is ignorance, which in this context is an awareness that mistakenly superimposes intrinsic nature; it apprehends internal and external phenomena as existing by way of their own intrinsic character."
(Tsongkhapa: The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path, vol 3, p 206-207)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2016 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Are there any Zen schools that teach only soup?
Content:
Dgj said:
if one totally forgot duality and nonduality then one would be practicing Zen.

Astus wrote:
That is an assumption based on what?

Dgj said:
Where there is only the soup and no further teaching or implications?

Astus wrote:
It seems you already know all you want to know. Why look for more?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2016 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The wallet is empty of money and this is not an intellectual idea, it's our actual experience.

Astus wrote:
There is a visual impression that is interpreted as absence of money. In other words, it is as conceptual as the idea that it is filled with money.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Vasana said:
since mind is not blank and innert like a pebble but clear and lucid I don't think using the word perception is problematic

Astus wrote:
Appearances are apparent, and what is not apparent is not an appearance. It might be called clarity as well, if we add that there is nothing that is not clarity. Perception is not problematic, if no instance of perception is assumed to be anything other than dependently originated.

Vasana said:
when refering to that perception as being free of grasping subject and object, self and other etc. Its not another ordinary perception but bare "yogic perception" or nonconceptual valid cognition.

Astus wrote:
It's fine as long as it's clear that nonconceptual (nirvikalpa) is not the absence of concepts as appearances but the cessation of conceptualisation (nisprapanca).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 5:16 PM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Where is this from? Not that I am implying that it is a fake quote, I just like to read.

Malcolm said:
It is from the heart of dependent origination by Nāgārjuna.

Astus wrote:
http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/nagarjuna/heart-dependent-origination Also see Santina: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So 'nothing to attain' doesn't mean just going along as we have always done, right?

Astus wrote:
We have always imagined that there are states of being to maintain and states of being to attain. That's what samsara is all about. Recognising that all states of being are empty is how there is no more struggle.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Vasana said:
To realize there is nothing to attain is it's self a mode of perception

Astus wrote:
It is the cessation of the mistaken view of self. It is not another view, state of mind, or mode of perception.

Vasana said:
it wouldn't be possible to conventionally distinguish the position of 'nothing to attain' with any other position.

Astus wrote:
To have any position is still attachment.

Vasana said:
It would then also follow that since ordinary beings have nothing to attain, their perceptions and knowledge are on par with a Buddha's. This would then invalidate the need for Buddhas to teach in the first place.

Astus wrote:
Ordinary beings believe there is something to attain. Buddhas do not. As Dogen (Genjokoan, BDK ed SBGZ vol 1, p 41) put it: "Those who greatly realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded about realization are ordinary beings." Also: "when you know illusion, you will immediately be free" (Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, ch 2, tr Muller).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Wayfarer said:
In the early Buddhist texts, there are many exhortations to 'hasten and strive'. There is a sense that time is limited, 'the enemy' is powerful, and the chance for liberation is slight. That seems hard to reconcile with the idea that there is 'nothing to attain'. What do you make of that?

Astus wrote:
Realising that there is nothing to attain means no more attachment. Beings are very much used to grasping at things, so it is normally not that easy to give up one's emotional and conceptual clinging.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
rachmiel said:
Advaita* definitely wins in terms of simplicity:
Ultimately there is brahman, period.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is simpler: there is not even a brahman.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Vasana said:
It depends how you define "source". I'm using source in the sense of both Samsara or Nirvana arising 'from' no where else but one's mind. Not in the sense of an isolatable source.

Astus wrote:
I think saying that there is a source can mislead one into the idea of a substratum. Samsara and nirvana are mental constructs, concepts. To say that there is mind, and then there are samsara and nirvana only complicates things.

Vasana said:
Not being something to attain doesn't negate the ultimate as being something to realize for one's self, not as an 'object' of realization but as a mode of perception.

Astus wrote:
What there is to realise it that there is nothing to attain. Not even a mode of perception.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Malcolm said:
Revise that to, "What keeps the wheel spinning is the assumption that there is something ultimate," then it is perfect.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Vasana said:
not knowing the source of the relative Is what keeps the wheel of suffering spinning.

Astus wrote:
If you assume there is a source, it is necessarily relative. What keeps the wheel spinning is the assumption that there is something ultimate to attain.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Ultimate Truth
Content:
Astus wrote:
Relative as ultimate is the relative. Relative as relative is the ultimate.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2016 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The fire going out is conditional on the fuel being removed (or burning out and no extra fuel being added).

Astus wrote:
When the cause is gone, there is no reason for the result to occur. When the root is cut, the tree falls and never grows again. With ignorance eliminated, there is no basis for ignorance to recur, thus no more dissatisfaction. That is how the fire cannot burst into flames again.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2016 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
If it is a result of applying the teaching then it arises conditionally based on the teaching.  ie The result is conditioned.

Astus wrote:
As long as there is fuel (clinging), the fire (passion) burns. With the fuel removed the fire is extinguished (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html ). That is how even though there is a conditioned path, the result is unconditioned. Or, to fit this to the tathagatagarbha teaching, appearances have always been empty, it is only by the mistaken view of substantiality that there is suffering. Therefore, when it is pointed out and personally seen that there is nothing to grasp, delusion is gone.

"Their mental stream, beginningless,
Is governed by their false belief that things are real.
All living beings therefore fail
To see the nature of phenomena.
Those who sound the nature of phenomena with reasoning
That cuts through misconception and brings understanding
Know this nature. It is known by powerful yogis also,
Through their clear, direct experience."
(Shantarakshita: The Adornment of the Middle Way, v 74-75, tr Padmakara)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 29th, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Malcolm said:
These things are not core doctrines at all. They are just taxonomies.

Astus wrote:
Teachings are what provide the description of the path to liberation. Those taxonomies are shorthand for various sets of teachings.

Malcolm said:
The nine yānas are also a taxonomy, a way of presenting distinct kinds of methodologies.

Astus wrote:
And the methodologies distinguished that way are what those who set up the taxonomy assign to it, and not identical to what others might mean by them.

Malcolm said:
So what might be a core teaching of the Buddha, as opposed to a taxonomy?
This ambrosial Dharma I have obtained
is deep, peaceful, immaculate, luminous, and unconditioned.

Astus wrote:
A teaching cannot be unconditioned. The result of applying the teaching can be.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 29th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Malcolm said:
But it is not a common ground at all. Or, rather, because of the history of Buddhist Studies in the West, there has come to be a mirage of commonality which every one chases, but somehow, no one can quite reach.

Astus wrote:
Even if the Agamas were not particularly popular in East Asia, and they were not transmitted to Tibet, the core doctrines, like the three characteristics, four noble truths, five aggregates, eighteen realms, twelve links and the thirty-seven factors have always been known.

Although if there is no common ground for the various groups, it also means that the paths they distinguish are different, and they actually do not say anything about the others, but rather simply make up their own structure of teachings. For example, the nine vehicles of the Nyingmapas say nothing about the teachings of the Kagyupas or the Theravadins, because those nine are merely their own interpretation of the teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Dharma taught by the Buddha in the First Turning is palliative, not fundamental; provisional and not definitive.

Astus wrote:
It is still the only common ground among all Buddhists, regardless of how individual schools interpret it. And that makes it fundamental, the basis for everyone.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
maybay said:
It is enough to agree on one omniscient Buddha. So long as a teaching is not in contradiction of his Dharma that teaching is OK.

Astus wrote:
From both the historical and religious perspective, the primary/fundamental basis of the Dharma that everyone agrees on is the collection of teachings in the Nikayas and Agamas.

And as http://www.geocities.ws/sutrasbudistas/shastras/gran-vehiculo.html writes: "one who investigates well this issue realizes that the Great Vehicle is completely in accord with the threefold seal of the dharma. Of course, if one does not well investigate it, then neither the Great Vehicle nor any of the three vehicles is accepted."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Ayu said:
Mathematicians say, if the world was infinite, then there have to be exact copies of everything in some duplicate worlds. They claim, the variety of forms has to be finite. If you think it through, you'll reach a point were all combinations and possibilities are finished.

Astus wrote:
The infinity and the non-decrease of beings stand for something else. It means that the realm of sentient beings and the realm of buddhas are not two.

"Śāriputra, foolish ordinary beings do not know the one dharma realm in accord with true reality. Because they do not see the one dharma realm in accord with true reality, they elicit wrong views in their minds, saying that the realm of sentient beings increases or decreases."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html )

"as the dharma realm and the domain of space have no beginning and no end, so too does the realm of sentient beings. Therefore, King of Laṅkā, because the realm of sentient beings is indescribable, we know that it neither increases nor decreases. Thus, in the ocean of the Three Realms of Existence, although some sentient beings have crossed it and some will cross it, the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases. King of Laṅkā, as an analogy, the domain of space neither increases nor decreases, and has no beginning, middle, or end. Therefore, it cannot be known. Yet it pervades everywhere, with no hindrance, no shape, no action, and no appearance. Indeed, indeed. King of Laṅkā, one can never find the beginning, middle, or end of the realm of sentient beings. King of Laṅkā, only achieving a clear understanding of the holy teachings can be called ending the realm of sentient beings, though the path of saṁskṛta dharmas never ends. King of Laṅkā, the path of liberation is not apart from the path of saṁskṛta dharmas. Why? Because this is the natural way of the realm of sentient beings. Therefore, it has no beginning, middle, or end."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra48a.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 4:53 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
maybay said:
Even the scholars agree who the Buddhas are.

Astus wrote:
The only buddha everyone agrees on is Shakyamuni, and even then it is a matter of affiliation that decides what teachings are attributed to him. At the same time, Garab Dorje is believed to be a buddha mostly by dzogchen followers and not others.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is why, rather than relying on the evaluations of paths made by scholars, we rely on the evaluations of paths made by buddhas.

Astus wrote:
And how do you tell who those buddhas are?

Malcolm said:
Bodhisattvas may realize there is nothing to attain, but they sure spend a long time going about that nonattainment.

Astus wrote:
Long is too mild a word. Not only the number of beings infinite, but their amount never even decrease.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Malcolm said:
Someone who is not expert in paths will not necessarily be able to distinguish a correct path from an incorrect path, or a superior path from an inferior path. Only some people have the necessary knowledge to make such an evaluation.

Astus wrote:
When the so called expert decides what those paths are, it is quite straightforward to claim to be the upholder of the best of the best and paint everyone else as inferior. It is like the aesthetician who says that Pre-Raphaelites are inferior to Cubists, but Pointillists are truly the best of all.

Malcolm said:
the purpose of evaluating paths is due to the fact that everyone wishes to achieve liberation as rapidly as possible

Astus wrote:
Shravakas may worry about quick liberation, bodhisattvas realise that there is nothing to attain.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 28th, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
MiphamFan said:
How does the example of the insect negate karma?

Astus wrote:
Karma is intentional action, it is what one does. If a big rock crashes someone, that is not an action but a consequence of a past action.

MiphamFan said:
It's a karmic link created from e.g. Trisong Detsen's link.

Astus wrote:
What is a karmic link? Is there a definition for it? What links what?

MiphamFan said:
The vehicles in themselves are not intrinsically better or worse, whether they are superior or inferior depends on the practitioner.

Astus wrote:
So do you now say that all vehicles are capable to accomplish the same, it only depends on the practitioner?

MiphamFan said:
It is far more foolish to say they are all the same.

Astus wrote:
If not, then it's not a question of the practitioner, but rather that some are better and some are worse.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
MiphamFan said:
it's not necessarily MY own deeds that led me to this path as that metaphor suggests

Astus wrote:
If accidental circumstances can affect a being's life, that negates the very meaning of karma.

MiphamFan said:
in any case, I am not proud

Astus wrote:
That is certainly laudable. However, it does not address the problem of the view that some paths and their followers are inferior and some are superior.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 6:26 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
MiphamFan said:
How is it pride and arrogance?

Astus wrote:
What else would you call the assumption that oneself is superior (exaltation) and others are inferior (contempt)?

"What is pride (mana)? It is exaltation of the mind (cittasyonnatih) which rests on the idea of self. Its function consists of giving a basis to the appearance of contempt (agaurava) and suffering."
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 12)

MiphamFan said:
In the same way, through good circumstances, I somehow met with Dzogchen teachers and have been given teachings. Through no fault of theirs, other beings never managed to do so.

Astus wrote:
All beings are heir to their own deeds. Karma and luck are opposing concepts.

MiphamFan said:
Criteria: rainbow body, all the signs along the path of Vajrayana etc

Astus wrote:
How are those criteria objective when they are accepted only by some Vajrayana followers?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
MiphamFan said:
The differences in paths are due to the differences in karmic proclivities of beings, this is basic Mahayana.

Astus wrote:
This is actually saying that not only someone follows an inferior path, but that the person following it is inferior as well. On the other hand, it is a fine way to strengthen pride and arrogance for those who imagine that because they subscribe to some superior path they are per definition superior people.

MiphamFan said:
Objectively, there are paths that lead more quickly or more slowly to Buddhahood

Astus wrote:
According to what objective criteria?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: How do buddhas contact people?
Content:
Luke said:
Even Shakyamuni Buddha who was a historical figure is/was "just a product of my own wishful thinking"??

Astus wrote:
You have not seen nor touched Shakyamuni, you merely think of him. So it is a good example of purely mental existence, that you nevertheless propose as something absolutely real.

Luke said:
And secondly, lumping all ideas proposed by humans as "delusions" completely skips over the fact that some ideas are very useful, beneficial, and accurately predict phenomena; whereas others are not useful, not beneficial, and don't accurately predict phenomena.  For example, scientific laws and theories are some of the most useful "delusions" that there are!

Astus wrote:
Visions of buddhas are relevant to the practice of Buddhism, in particular a type of meditation. It is neither a scientific nor an economic doctrine or method. As far as I'm aware, no one has suggested that one should visualise buddhas in order to explain earthquakes or improve internet connection.

Luke said:
It's not clear to me how sophisticated Mahayana Buddhists have recalibrated their "B.S. filters" to let in the minimum amount of essential Mahayana concepts while safely keeping out total nonsense.   Saying "all is mind" seems to me to be embracing a world of undifferentiated nonsense, which doesn't seem to me like a very useful view  to have...

Astus wrote:
One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is that everything exists in context. So, if one says that there is anything that exists and/or has a meaning regardless of context, that is B.S. All teachings of Buddhism are within the context of perpetuating liberation. Once one forgets that context and tries to interpret the Dharma as something else, it ceases to be in accordance with the teaching of the buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the Mahasanghikas mentioned

Astus wrote:
You're right, it's Guang Xing who writes that the doctrine of contemporaneous buddhas was held by the Mahasanghikas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
I'm just positing that attributing the simultaneous Buddhas of the 10 directions to the Mahayana is a bit of a stretch. Certainly Guang Xing is not making this case in his writings, attributing the idea to pre-Mahayana Mahasanghika thought.

Astus wrote:
Analayo attributes it to the Mahasanghikas as well, as you have seen yourself in the footnote.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
How Guang Xing supports Analayo's claim that it's all back-imported into the Agamas from Mahayana, I have no idea.

Astus wrote:
What Analayo shows is the presence of Mahayana notions in the EA, particularly the first part of it, and attributes that to the conditions in 5th century China.

Admin_PC said:
I'm talking about the in-house doctrines of the various 18 early schools, which Guang Xing covers pretty extensively. These in-house doctrines led to fairly early works like the Mahavastu and would've been ideas passed down within particular schools prior to being made formal works.

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure if Analayo debates that Mahayana is the organic development from the northern schools. In fact, his work https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/genesis-bodhisattva.pdf concludes (p 130): "A central factor behind these various strands of development that appear to have contributed to the genesis of the bodhisattva ideal seems to be the gradual apotheosis of the Buddha, evident already in the early discourses." and (p 131): "Taking the early discourses as the starting point would also explain quite naturally why the bodhisattva ideal became a pan-Buddhist phenomenon that drew followers from most, if not all, of the Buddhist schools, including the Theravāda tradition."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
One quote from that footnote seems to dispute what you just said:
"EĀ 37.2 is the only one out of these passages that does reflect the notion that Buddhas can exist simultaneously."

Astus wrote:
The whole point of that paper is to show how EA includes several Mahayana elements, so that passage is one more example for it.

Admin_PC said:
Among other things, these guys support Gombrich's idea that no teachings could possibly have been passed down within certain lineages that were not preserved in the Agamas

Astus wrote:
Are you referring to the usual trope of "secret transmission", used so often by those who wanted to establish a new teaching's authenticity?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
The most egregious is probably his rebuttal of Guang Xing's mention of Buddhas of the Ten Directions appearing in a sutra in the Agamas based entirely off of a CBETA search of a single character.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/mahayana.pdf? There, on p19n48 what he writes is that the expression "buddhas of past, present, future" does not mean contemporaneity. Furthermore, Guang Xing writes (p 65) that the idea of contemporaneous buddhas is most likely a Mahasamghika concept that is not accepted by the Sarvastivadins. In other words, if that concept of many buddhas at the same time had been present in the early strata, it would not have been a problematical view, and the MPPS (quoted by Guang Xing as the earliest discussion on the matter) would not have said that contemporaneous buddhas were not a sravaka but a mahayana idea.

So, there is actually no disagreement on the matter between Guang Xing and Analayo that the idea of contemporaneous buddhas is a later concept. Even if the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80gama_%28Buddhism%29#Buddhology tries to make this a thing, it isn't really a thing.

Admin_PC said:
when the man has an entire library of sectarian articles

Astus wrote:
Do you call the study of Early Buddhism a sectarian endeavour? I wouldn't.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
You're reframing my argument to say something I'm not saying. You say I'm debating Mahayana timeline, I am not. I never have in this thread.

Astus wrote:
In that case I see nothing to be debated, at least from my side.

Admin_PC said:
he does say it's organic growth of ideas that have seeds starting with very early material. Analayo is quick to throw out any early material that contains the seeds for these later ideas, claiming it's all later material

Astus wrote:
I am not as invested in the topic as you seem to be. Do you have some examples of scriptures he rejects?

Admin_PC said:
That he attempts in that video to claim he is ecumenical is laughable and ironic.

Astus wrote:
I think that is focusing on the person instead of the content. Whether Ven. Analayo lives up to the ideals presented there or not is irrelevant as far as I can tell.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 7:03 PM
Title: Re: How do buddhas contact people?
Content:
Luke said:
How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?

Astus wrote:
Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: Sadhana or Visualization come under what category in Tendai or other Buddhist sects?
Content:
LetGo said:
I'm not sure 念佛 is the proper term for visualizing the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Nianfo simply means buddha-remembrance, from the term buddhanusmrti. The way one recalls a buddha is not specified by the expression.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I don't really see much being resolved with this method, to be honest. It seems to just create a new statement that conflicts with all of the other ones. I am happy to take traditions on their own terms and accept the cognitive dissonance that follows.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that you accept history as a matter of sectarian affiliation? If so, then all versions stand on equal grounds, consequently neither of them can actually call itself the true account compared to any other story. In this way the whole topic of historical origin becomes irrelevant in ascertaining authenticity.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Resolve what? What exactly is resolved by these studies? Is it something relevant to the goals of Dharma practice, or is it merely relevant to validating one approach to texts over another?

Astus wrote:
Authenticity based on historical claims is what is investigated and analysed. In other words, if one's claim of authenticity relies on a set of assumptions about past events, then analysing those statements is the logical step. Just as it is so often done about today's teachers that the first thing people want to affirm is whether they are members of an accepted tradition. So, is history relevant to Dharma practice? Many think so, otherwise they would not base their credibility on historical assumptions, and there would not be controversies over lineages, transmissions, etc. But if we remove the historical element, then what we are left with are the doctrinal and practical teachings, so we can actually deal with what is directly relevant to practice, instead of the usual bickering over stories of the past.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
Let me put it this way, that faction puts a lot of stock in TW Rhys Davids. I happen to put more stock in people like Prof. Charles Willemen.

Astus wrote:
Does Willemen debate the timeline of Buddhist scriptures and schools? Does he claim that Mahayana is traceable to the earliest strata of Buddhism? If not, what is it in particular that makes you say that you prefer that "faction"?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
I'm saying he inherently devalues by forcing his narrative without evidence, establishing his own version as historically primary. He did it in that video for sure.

Astus wrote:
Historical studies in Buddhism, that has been going on for 100+ years, are quite clear about the sequence of the appearance of various texts. Are you aware of some research that contradict the generally accepted view?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
tomamundsen said:
But even labeling some teachings (i.e. Mahayana sutras) as "developments" and rejecting them as authentic original teachings of the Buddha is de-valuing them straight out of the gate.

Astus wrote:
Everyone claims that they are the original and the rest are not. Thus the conflicting statements. That is what taking a historical perspective can resolve.

tomamundsen said:
What about the case of Buddhist teachers from traditional Buddhist cultures who teach these things to Westerners?

Astus wrote:
A good number of Asian teachers have been aware of modern historical studies for a while now. Besides that, every tradition has its own version of structuring the teachings according to its own ideas. There is nothing wrong with such structures. However, they are not historical accounts, but theoretical systems meant to establish certain interpretations.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Admin_PC said:
He talks about having a timeline in order to respect the plurality of Buddhist traditions, warning against "Early Buddhist" fundamentalism.

Astus wrote:
It is the historical approach that can logically explain the varieties while at the same time does not devalue the developments.

Admin_PC said:
In real life, his works are absolutely used to establish an "Early Buddhist" fundamentalism

Astus wrote:
His main area is the study of Early Buddhism. If there are some who happen to misuse it for fundamentalist claims, how is that his fault?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Samatha vs Vipassana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What do you mean by such terms? There are numerous ways to practise calming and insight, and there are methods to prepare oneself to calming. As long as the emotions are too strong to allow sitting peacefully, you might approach from cultivating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nianfo (see: http://ymba.org/books/taming-monkey-mind-guide-pure-land-practice ), the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html ), one of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B6ndro s, sutra recitation, or prostration.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2016 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: comparing paths, uniting paths, and practicing a path
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blp_r2rKOk

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]


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2016 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Sadhana or Visualization come under what category in Tendai or other Buddhist sects?
Content:
ShineeSeoul said:
are they under vipassana? the visualization, or they are under different category

Astus wrote:
If one thinks about the qualities of buddhas, that is a good preliminary practice. If one focuses on an image, that can be samatha. If one contemplates that the image is mind made and empty, that is vipasyana. Combining focus and contemplation is the combination of samatha and vipasyana.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2016 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: How do buddhas contact people?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is some explanation from Kumarajiva on meeting buddhas:

"There are three types of samādhi for seeing the Buddhas (jianfo sanmei 見佛三昧): (1) A Bodhisattva might attain the divine eye or the divine ear, or perhaps fly throughout the ten directions to where the Buddhas reside, see them, ask questions about their difficulties, and have their snare of doubts cut off. (2) Even without supernatural powers, they contemplate (nian 念) Amitābha and all the Buddhas of the present, and with their mind residing in one place, they can attain a vision of the Buddhas and ask about their doubts. (3) They can study and practice nianfo with or without having abandoned their desires. Alternatively, they may gaze at a Buddha image, or contemplate his earthly Buddha-body, or see all of the Buddhas of the past, present, and future. All three of these are called “nianfo samādhi.”"
(Charles B. Jones: http://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/chbj2109-New_Jones_CHBJ_V21.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 24th, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Sadhana or Visualization come under what category in Tendai or other Buddhist sects?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Visualisation of a buddha is commonly known as buddha-remembrance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nianfo ), one of the basic remembrance practices ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anussati ).

Some sutras on visualisation:

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra22.html
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra24.html
http://www.fodian.net/world/0277b.html
http://www.fodian.net/world/0450.html


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 14th, 2016 at 5:31 PM
Title: Re: Is this wrong?
Content:
Norden said:
since it's a Sutra, Maha Karuna Dharani Sutra to be precise. Did I make a bad kamma since I turned it off with such thought?
...
But that is Sutra's noise not music's sound.
And the "dislike" arose prior turning it off was caused by the Sutra's noise hence the doer with such thought turning it off.

Astus wrote:
You cannot turn off a sutra, nor does a sutra have noise. The only bad thing would be if you rejected the teaching of the sutra, thus abandoning the path. But that is not the case here.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 14th, 2016 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Taisho translations
Content:
pael said:
How many characters you need to know for reading Taisho?

Astus wrote:
It's not just knowing classical Chinese, but add to that a Buddhist vocabulary as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2016 at 5:05 PM
Title: Re: Taisho translations
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is a more complete list of existing translations: http://mbingenheimer.net/tools/bibls/transbibl.html


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Anders said:
Historically, I suppose you could say it was distinctive, in the sense that when Zen came to China, it really shifted the onus from exegesis and choice of scripture as the hallmarks of profundity of the various school to embodied awakening and transmitting this awakening in the most practical and expedient way according to circumstances.

Astus wrote:
Except that when it came to China, it was the Lankavatara school, very much scripture based, if we can consider Bodhidharma the source of Zen. Then there was Shenhui and the Diamond Sutra, followed by the first major Zen scripture, the Platform Sutra, that itself became the hallmark of true transmission according to its own claim. And when we arrive at mature Zen of the Song era, when the "outside the teachings" concept was invented, it was all about the production of lamp records. As for teaching according to circumstances, that's the whole point of skilful means, a classical Mahayana element.

Anders said:
Yes indeed. The point of being a 'transmission' school, as opposed to a 'scriptural' school (though I think 'scriptural' schools that carry authentic living lineages of awakening share this trait with Zen)

Astus wrote:
We can know for a fact that Zen does not have an unbroken lineage. How can there be a transmission then?

Anders said:
the profundity of the Zen school is not a matter of a special teaching or method, but a matter of the present profundity of realisation of those within its lineage and their ability to impart this onto students.

Astus wrote:
Can you specify what the realisation is about? What is it that is realised?

Anders said:
Basically, the profundity of Zen varies over time.

Astus wrote:
How could it vary if the same realisation is transmitted?

Anders said:
Hence why Dogen refused to even acknowledge a Zen school as anything other than false classification and stressed that "You must understand that in Buddhism the stress falls on the truth or falsity of the training-not on the excellence or mediocrity of the teaching or the depth or shallowness of the principle."

Astus wrote:
And in the same answer Dogen (Bendowa, BDK ed SBGZ vol 1, p 10-11) specifies his message as: "When we solely sit in zazen ... relying now on exactly the same posture as the Buddha, and letting go of the myriad things, then we go beyond the areas of delusion, realization, emotion, and consideration, and we are not concerned with the ways of the common and the sacred. At once we are roaming outside the [intellectual] frame, receiving and using the great state of bodhi." At the same time, he summarily dismisses every other teaching: "This is something that has never been heard in other lineages." In other words, he does have a specific method, and considers it the only real path.

Anders said:
This is aversive to classification and eludes questions like "what is Zen really"

Astus wrote:
Not at all. Dogen (in Bendowa) is quite straightforward in stating that "Great Master Śākyamuni exactly transmitted, as the authentic tradition, this subtle method of grasping the state of truth, and the tathāgatas of the three times all attained the truth through zazen. Thus the fact that [zazen] is the authentic gate has been transmitted and received. Furthermore, the patriarchs of the Western Heavens and the Eastern Lands all attained the truth through zazen. Therefore I am now preaching [zazen] to human beings and gods as the authentic gate."

Anders said:
It is essentially Samantabhadra - Ie, all enlightened and enlightening activities within the stream of Zen practitioners and adepts. Pretty simple and unadorned really, but impossible to overlook, imo.

Astus wrote:
In other words, Zen is what Zen practitioners and adepts do, so "Zen is what Zen does". But why some people are and others are not Zen, that's still a mystery.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Flow, mindfulness, nondual awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
It's less concept-heavy, more vivid.

Astus wrote:
Are concepts not part of what is?

rachmiel said:
So Buddhism does not have "non-dual awareness" in its vocabulary?

Astus wrote:
Buddhist vocabulary exists in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan. What is the term you are looking for? For instance, "non-dual mind" (不二心) or "non-dual awareness" (不二知) are not found in the Chinese Buddhist dictionary, nor "non-dual intellect" (不二意) or "non-dual consciousness" (不二識).

Garfield (Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings, p 44) uses it in his translation of Trisvabhavanirdesa:

"In the same way, through the non-perception of duality
There is the vanishing of duality.
When it vanishes completely,
Non-dual awareness arises."

However, the same stanza by Anacker (Seven Works of Vasubandhu, p 295):

"With the non-apprehension of duality, the appearance of duality vanishes,
and with this disappearance, the fulfilled, the non-being of duality, is understood."

And Kochumutton (A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience, p 252):

"By the non-perception of duality
The form of duality disappears;
The non-duality resulting from its disappearance
Is then attained."

And indeed, I don't see any sign of "non-dual awareness" in the http://www.dsbcproject.org/canon-text/content/338/1391:

dvayasyānupalambhena dvayākāro vigacchati|
vigamāt tasya niṣpanno dvayābhāvo'dhigamyate||


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Flow, mindfulness, nondual awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
When you are so immersed in reading/contemplating a teaching that you forget about time, food, self ... you are in flow.

Astus wrote:
In other words, it is an enjoyable activity. Such activities are what can serve as a good basis for craving.

rachmiel said:
Direct experience of what-is.

Astus wrote:
How is that different from recognising that it is raining?

rachmiel said:
Would all Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist schools agree that non-dual awareness is a conditioned state? Advaitins would say no, non-dual awareness (brahman) is unconditioned and state-less.

Astus wrote:
Non-duality in Buddhism means the freedom from grasping at the concepts of existence and non-existence. It is not a state to be in.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Flow, mindfulness, nondual awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Flow can help us work through a complex teaching, or a tough day at a retreat, etc.

Astus wrote:
"immersion in the current activity ... similar to autopilot in terms of the feeling that things happen "on their own."" - a complex teaching needs complex thinking to understand, so I don't see how that helps. This flow is basically just getting lost in experiences without a shred of reflection.

rachmiel said:
Mindfulness can keep us grounded in the present moment.

Astus wrote:
And that is good for what?

rachmiel said:
And non-dual awareness IS liberation ... or at least a doorway to it.

Astus wrote:
Since it is a conditioned state, it is hardly liberation. And as long as one imagines it to be anything special, it is a doorway only to more attachments.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Title: Re: Flow, mindfulness, nondual awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
I've come to recognize three key states of "heightened" consciousness: flow, mindfulness, and nondual awareness.

Astus wrote:
What's the use of such states? How do they relate to liberation?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Anders said:
What defines Zen most primarily is the transmission of awakening - That both teacher and student are able to use the methods at their disposal skilfully in accordance with their particular circumstances in order to engender and mature awakening. What particular methods are used is tertiary to the fact that awakening happens and the 'lineage' thus continues in a living and authentic manner.

Astus wrote:
Up to Zongmi all schools claimed exclusive rights to the transmission, starting with Zongmi it was a matter of higher and lower quality lineages. If, as you say, there is such a thing as "the transmission of awakening" as the hallmark of Zen, then not only all other schools are branded as dysfunctional communities, but even among those who identify as belonging to the lineage of Bodhidharma there are disagreements about authenticity. Such disagreements, however, would be impossible if there were such a genuine awakening transmitted from generation to generation.

Anders said:
What is called "Zen" is the work being done on the ground - The living actualisation of awakening from moment to moment and from one generation to another.

Astus wrote:
Isn't that what every Buddhist community is doing? Isn't that one of the crucial functions of the Sangha?

Anders said:
There is an immeasurable breadth and depth to this body of work that can not be boiled down to adherence to a specific set of scriptures or tenets, particular method(s) or "mere literary devices."

Astus wrote:
What is "this body of work"? Is it the particular activities of an individual teacher, or is it the literary products of the Zen school?

Anders said:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here?

Astus wrote:
It is like what you wrote: "There is no objective clarity in teachings themselves. Clarity is a function of the person reading it." Similarly, a buddha may appear right in front of one and one can still miss it, while one with the right eyes can see the buddhas everywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 8th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
moreover even Dogen before he started shikan taza practice trained seriously for many years. between beginner zazen and true state of shikan taza is very long way... it is what is widely disregarded nowdays, including all instructions which may bring one to shikan taza... and today almost everyone is repeating 'just sitting' or shikan taza however missing the true meaning.. it is sad and childlish.

Astus wrote:
"After the initial meeting with a [good] counselor we never again need to burn incense, to do prostrations, to recite Buddha’s name, to practice confession, or to read sutras. Just sit and get the state that is free of body and mind."
(Dogen: Bendowa, BDK ed SBGZ vol 1, p 5)

There is no description of preparatory practices, nor any other elements. If we were to add preparatory and auxiliary methods, Zen would be no different from the other schools teaching gradual progression. As Hanshan http://chancenter.org/cmc/2011/10/13/essentials-of-practice-and-enlightenment-for-beginners/ "to even speak about practice is really like the last alternative", and then of course he goes on about how to practise the phrase-investigation. As I see it, even talking about assuming a seated posture is a concession on the part of Dogen.

Matylda said:
what is final teaching is shikan taza, and where is the rest???

Astus wrote:
As Keizan http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/zzyk.shtml: "Zazen is not based upon teaching, practice or realization; instead these three aspects are all contained within it." and "Zazen is also not based upon discipline, practice, or wisdom. These three are all contained within it."

Matylda said:
missing part of instructions is filled by prvate philosophies and pov. what is the worst situation..

Astus wrote:
That is certainly a sad situation. However, it's not because oral instructions are lost, but because the extensive teachings of Mahayana are neglected.

Matylda said:
if it would be so easy as one may suggest, then reading texts on shikan taza like that of Menzan would be perfectly sufficient.. what for any further instructions?

Astus wrote:
This raises a problem: if the essential teaching of Zen is insufficient, then there is no basis of regarding it as a "separate transmission outside the teachings", because the transmission must be with the teachings. And Dogen seems to agree with this:

"Both the Buddhist sutras and the Patriarch’s truth have been authentically transmitted and have spread from Śākyamuni Buddha. The Patriarch’s transmission has been received only by rightful successors from rightful successors, but how could [rightful successors] not know, how could they not clarify, and how could they not read and recite the Buddhist sutras?"
(Dogen: Bukkyo, BDK ed SBGZ vol 3, p 148)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 7th, 2016 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
yes of course... but do not take it for granted.. to understand this text and its content you need master of jijuyu zanmai, actaully thoroughroly realised master... nowdays there are many random and shallow interpretations of it...

Astus wrote:
It is a fairly straightforward text: "We just illuminate our thoughts which moment by moment come up and go away, refrain from fabricating adoption or rejection, and hatred or love." That is the standard description not only of Dogen's http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms08.pdf, or the fundamental http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=145499#p145499, but the essence of http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.040.than.html.

So, while it might be so that one needs extensive and proper instructions to be able to practice correctly, it is not because of the lack of clarity in the teachings themselves that people go astray.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 7th, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
A rock cannot point out to your own state. That is the difference between a rock and guru.

Astus wrote:
Is that so? There are several stories in Zen that show how someone was awakened by natural events.

A monk said, “I’ve just arrived here and I beg the master to point out a gate whereby I may enter.”
Xuansha said, “Do you hear the sound of the water in Yan Creek?”
The monk said, “I hear it.”
Xuansha said, “That’s the place of your entry.”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 300)

Furthermore, can a guru point out one's state unmistakably in any situation? Or does it depend on the disciple? If it takes a good teacher and a good student, such a pointing out is a difficult matter. When a good teacher can educate a dumb student, isn't that what makes one a good teacher? Similarly, if a good student can learn from a dumb teacher, isn't that what makes one a good student?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 7th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
there were fine masters of shikan taza in Japan.. now there are no more then 5...

Astus wrote:
That sounds very bad indeed. Do you consider Menzan Zuiho's description of Jijuyu-zanmai is proper shikantaza?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
Just as a parent can show a child something sweet, a proper teacher can show you your own state directly, without any words.

Astus wrote:
What good is a mute teacher? The insentient constantly teach the Dharma.

"At this time, everything in the universe in ten directions—soil, earth, grass, and trees; fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles—performs the Buddha’s work."
(Dogen: Bendowa, BDK ed SBGZ vol 1, p 6)

"realizing the truth on seeing the peach blossoms, realizing the truth on hearing the sound of a bamboo, and realizing the truth on seeing a bright star, are all examples of the sutras producing good counselors."
(Dogen: Bukkyo, BDK ed SBGZ vol 3, p 140)

"The causes and conditions of eighty-thousand such Dharma aggregates are, in every case, the establishment of the mind. Some [people] have established the mind in a dream and attained the truth; some have established the mind in drunkenness and attained the truth; some establish the mind and attain the truth amid flying flowers and falling leaves; some establish the mind and attain the truth amid peach blossoms and green bamboo; some establish the mind and attain the truth in the heavens above; and some establish the mind and attain the truth in the sea."
(Dogen: Hotsu-mujoshin, BDK ed SBGZ vol 3, p 337)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at 5:26 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
shikan taza is unfathomable state, though it has become popular method among modern practitioners, but in fact it is very different from current shallow interpretations.

Astus wrote:
Are you of the opinion that what goes under Soto Zen in the West is a poor imitation of the real thing? That http://wwzc.org/dharma-text/posture-zazen is not http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/ but something qualitatively different? Can you tell the reason behind all those teachers either hiding or being ignorant about the true teaching?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
actually many methods were transmitted verbally and directly in private instruction form... when zen was in decline more teachers spoke more openly about these things to encourage disciples and general consciousness of practitioners... they did not want the tradition to die out

Astus wrote:
That line of argument is used so many times when someone wants to introduce new ideas, like in the story of the nagas preserving the prajnaparamita scriptures. In any case, why would one need such methods for shikantaza?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Meido said:
They do not in the traditional view negate methods at all, however.

Astus wrote:
I agree, there is no negation of methods. Neither I am saying that there is anything wrong with them.

Meido said:
But your concept of a "direct path" seems completely devoid of methods, and therefore is not actually a path.

Astus wrote:
Exactly. That's what makes it direct.

Meido said:
for someone who reads the words of, say, Rinzai in the Rinzairoku and is not immediately liberated, or is unable to manifest the seamless continuity of recognition which everyone is recommending, what is to be done?

Astus wrote:
Mahayana offers a detailed progressive path.

"[The teaching that one can] cultivate the six perfections and the myriad practices in order to achieve Buddhahood—this is the progressive [approach to Buddhahood]."
(Huangbo: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed p 14)

"If a trainee does not instantly [attain] no-mind but spends successive eons in cultivation, he will never achieve enlightenment. He will be fettered by the meritorious practices of the three vehicles and will not attain liberation.
However, there is fast and slow in realizing this mind: there are those who attain no-mind in a single moment of thought after hearing the Dharma; those who attain no-mind after [passing through] the ten faiths, the ten abodes, the ten practices, and the ten conversions; and those who attain no-mind after [passing through] the ten stages [of the bodhisattva]. In spite of the length of time it takes them to [attain it, once they] reside in no-mind there is nothing else to be cultivated or realized. Truly without anything to be attained, true and not false [is no-mind]. Whether it is attained in a single moment of thought or at the tenth stage [of the bodhisattva], its efficacy is identical."
(p 16)

Meido said:
check Transmission of the Lamp for Guishan (though I don't know if that is the earliest reference, but that puts it in early Song).

Astus wrote:
Thanks, I've found it.

頭陀令謦欬一聲行數步。 (T51n2076_009)
"The Dhuta ordered him to cough deeply once and pace several steps" (Original Teachings of Chan Buddhism, p 201)

However, Ferguson translates it (i.e. 謦欬一聲) differently:

司馬請謦欬一聲行數步。 (T47n1989_001)
"Sima asked Hua to speak a few words and walk back and forth." (Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 145)

Meido said:
This anecdote from that time tells us something about Chan as it existed then, and there is a transmitted understanding of what that something is as well as its utility in practice.

Astus wrote:
This Sima, a dhutanga ascetic, called a geomancer by Heine (Opening a Mountain, p 49), is the true judge in the story of who becomes the abbot, so it's not really a question of Chan abilities. It's like the practice of fortune telling used in selecting the abbot.

Meido said:
My personal experience practicing with a modern Chan teacher also included instruction in related things.

Astus wrote:
That seems fairly common, just as certain tantric rituals, and of course a fair amount of Amituofo.

Meido said:
Zen being what it is, it could and should be able to integrate many methods.

Astus wrote:
And that is actually the question: what is Zen? I mean, in Chinese Buddhism almost any meditation practice and anecdote can be called Chan and most, if not all, monasteries are Chan, just as monks and abbots are members of a Chan lineage, so it is actually a synonym for Buddhism.

Meido said:
Yet you seem to be at pains to discount the myriad skillful means which have developed (and not doubt will continue to develop) over the centuries, in favor of what really seems to me to be a rather sterile, literalist approach discounting oral instruction and resting solely upon words in a certain class of Zen texts which - we both must admit - reveal very little about what practitioners were actually doing day to day in terms of practice.

Astus wrote:
And the reason for that is to specify what sort of teaching Zen is. That's why I call it the direct path, as that is what was specified in the primary works of the Zen tradition as the essential element. On the other hand, if it can be a progressive teaching, then it is no different from the common bodhisattvayana, and there is not much left to call Zen but mere literary devices.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
You cannot explain "sweet" to anyone.

Astus wrote:
Words are not the meaning, and the meaning is not the experience. Experience is not communicated, it is what one arrives at after understanding what is meant.

Malcolm said:
But when they taste it, they know exactly what you mean by sweet. Buddhahood is something to be shown in one's direct perception.

Astus wrote:
Just as you say, one has to arrive at the experience oneself, it cannot be handed over. What can be received are the words.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Matylda said:
ask Roshi about relation of body, breathing, energy and samadhi in zazen practice.

Astus wrote:
Such a relationship was known in India as well ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama ), but as far as I'm aware, only in the late Anuttarayogatantra teachings were such methods incorporated, while the classical practice of Anapanasmrti is not about control but mindfulness of breath. As for how it appeared in modern Rinzai Zen, I think that's something Hakuin introduced. In other words, manipulation of breathing is not a traditional element of East Asian Mahayana, nor of Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Meido said:
Just about all of them.

Astus wrote:
Which of those instructions discuss physical training? Even the https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html says "How could that be limited to sitting or lying down?" And the http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/zzyk.shtml: "Zazen is far beyond the form of sitting or lying down." And although "for the study of the path, sitting is the superior posture" (Zhiyi: Essentials of Buddhist Meditation, ch 6) and "of the four forms of conduct, [sitting is the most] peaceful and joyful" (Dogen: Bendowa, BDK ed SBGZ vol 1, p 12), the "essence of cultivating enlightenment" is "the inherently complete and pure mind" (Hongren: Treatise on the Supreme Vehicle), and as Huineng said "the samādhi of the single practice is to always practice the single direct mind in all one’s actions, whether walking, standing still, sitting, or lying down" (Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK ed p 42).
My point is no different from what Vimalakirti told Sariputra, and Nanyue told Mazu: the posture is not the essential point. That is not to deny the importance and benefits of corporeal practice, however, when it comes to the direct path, that is not it.

Meido said:
One could start exploring it by considering why Hyakujo's students were tested for suitability to serve as abbot of a new monastery by being ordered, each in turn, to take a few steps forward and clear their throats.

Astus wrote:
I am not familiar with that incident. There is the story in the BCR, cases 70-72, and in the WMG, case 40, and even Baizhang's recorded sayings have nothing more either. I might also add that those events are most likely Song era inventions and not accounts of how abbots were actually selected, a process that was regulated by the Vinaya and often controlled by the local or imperial aristocracy.
on the ground people use myriad methods transmitted in various lines, according to their unique conditions.
And that is the expected way of a good teacher (even outside Buddhism), the application of skilful means. As Fayan wrote in his Ten Guidelines for Zen Schools: "The Zen founder did not come from India to China because there is something to be transmitted. He just pointed directly to the human mind for the perception of its essence and realization of awakening. ... Nevertheless, the provisional teachings devised by the guides to the source had differences and accordingly came to differ from one another."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, what the Buddha taught can never be captured in words, no more than one can capture the taste of sweet in words.

Astus wrote:
To teach is to communicate information. It happens mostly through verbal means. The carrier of the information (words) are not identical to the information (meaning) itself. Furthermore, once the meaning communicated is understood, it is up to the receiver to apply it. But if the method of communication is taken away, there is no meaning delivered, no understanding of that meaning occurs, and there is no possibility of applying it. If you say that words are incapable of communicating the meaning, then no teaching is possible, and a samyaksambuddha is actually a pratyekabuddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
Contradicts what you write here:

Astus wrote:
Even if we consider buddhas in other worlds, it makes no difference, that was what I intended to point out. Nevertheless, what Shakyamuni taught is what we have in the scriptures.

Malcolm said:
And it implies that knowledge of reality is something pointed out by a master in a student's direct perception.

Astus wrote:
Where does it imply that? Linji talks about the importance of seeing the truth of the Dharma in one's experience. Such instructions are given in the sutras as well.

More from Linji:

"Virtuous monks, time is precious. And yet, hurrying hither and thither, you try to learn meditation, to study the Way, to accept names, to accept phrases, to seek buddha, to seek a patriarch, to seek a good teacher, to think and speculate.
Make no mistake, followers of the Way! After all, you have a father and a mother—what more do you seek? Turn your own light inward upon yourselves!"
(p 10)

"In my view there is no Buddha, no sentient beings, no past, no present. Anything attained was already attained—no time is needed. There is nothing to practice, nothing to realize, nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Throughout all time there is no other dharma than this. ‘If one claims there’s a dharma surpassing this, I say that it’s like a dream, like a phantasm.’ This is all I have to teach."
(p 12-13)

"For the Chan school, understanding is not thus—it is instantaneous, now, not a matter of time! All that I teach is just provisional medicine, treatment for a disease. In fact, no real dharma exists. Those who understand this are true renouncers of home, and may spend a million gold coins a day.
Followers of the Way, don’t have your face stamped with the seal of sanction by any old master anywhere, then go around saying, ‘I understand Chan, I understand the Way.’ Though your eloquence is like a rushing torrent, it is nothing but hell-creating karma."
(p 13)

"As for myself, I haven’t a single dharma to give to people. All I can do is to cure illnesses and untie bonds."
(p 22)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
Then you should understand that there is only a tiny fraction in this world system, and not one of them reaches the meaning of "direct perception."

Astus wrote:
As Linji said,

"Even if, through your seeking, you did find something, that something would be nothing more than fancy descriptions in written words; never would you gain the mind of the living patriarch. Make no mistake, worthy Chan men! If you don’t find it here and now, you’ll go on transmigrating through the three realms for myriads of kalpas and thousands of lives, and, held in the clutch of captivating circumstances, be born in the wombs of asses or cows."
(Record of Linji, p 8, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
Funny thought that, thinking that Buddha's teachings are confined to extant sūtras, since only a tiny fraction of sūtras in toto exist in this world system. Then of course there is the issue of tantras...

Astus wrote:
Tantras are not different from sutras, they are both scriptures (jing 經) of the canon. And what the teachings (jiao 教) refer to are the words of the Buddha.

As Zongmi wrote:

"The sutras are buddha word, while Chan is the intention of the buddhas."
(Zongmi on Chan, p 109)

And as the later tradition, maintained, in the words of Hyujeong:

"The branches of Seon and Doctrine were Kāśyapa and Ānanda. To use no words to reach the wordless is Seon; to use words to reach the wordless is Doctrine. So then the mind is the Seon dharma (method) and language is the Doctrine dharma."
(Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 59)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
As for the saying we are discussing means teachings that aren't written down in sutra. Why would someone writing about such things write them down if they know they can't be written down?

Astus wrote:
What teachings are not found in the sutras? If they are not in the sutras, they could not have been taught by the Buddha, consequently they are not even Buddhist teachings, much less Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Meido said:
Zen practice, on the other hand, has everything to do with the body.

Astus wrote:
That depends on what practice you mean.
Why should they? The four lines defining Zen do not discuss methods either. Those quotes point out Zen's approach to the path, they are not practice instructions.
What do you consider practice instructions? Can you give some examples from traditional works?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
It is a teaching methodology.

Astus wrote:
What method is that? See the following definitions.

Bodhidharma (Bloodstream Sermon):
"Buddhas of the past and future only transmit this mind."
"In India the twenty-seven patriarchs only transmitted the imprint of the mind. And the only reason I’ve come to China is to transmit the instantaneous teaching of the Mahayana This mind is the Buddha."
"Yours is the mind of all Buddhas. Buddhas of the past and future only talk about transmitting the mind."

Huineng (Platform Sutra):
"I transmit only the Dharma of seeing the nature;" (ch 2, p 34)
"Our patriarchs have transmitted only this sudden teaching," (ch 7, p 53)
"I transmit the mind-seal of the Buddha; how could [what I say] differ from the Buddha’s sutra?" (ch 8, p 76)

They say nothing at all about methods. If anything, it's the single method of realising the nature of mind directly, and such a realisation is a personal experience.

AlexMcLeod said:
And notice he still is speaking of method in the text you quoted. In our school, heart-to-heart transmission is the prerequisite for correct practice. This means that such methods necessarily involve teacher to student initiation. Hence making it a transmission, as defined above, that is not from the scriptures/tradition.

Astus wrote:
That's all fine. I don't know any martial arts school that does not involve learning it directly from a teacher. So, to call such a common phenomenon a "heart-to-heart transmission" is OK, but actually means very little. In a similar way one could call the method of tying one's shoes received in a "heart-to-heart transmission". But again, this is a topic on a Zen saying, not martial arts or landscape painting.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 at 6:46 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
This lines up very nicely with the direct pointing that Meido described. This is what a heart-to-heart transmission is in my teacher's school. The, for lack of a better term, initiation of the student into the path, not the fruition of that path.

Astus wrote:
That does not seem to be about Zen Buddhism. As it is quoted http://shaolin.org/general-2/way-of-master/way49.html, it's about his own form of martial arts. Furthermore, Zen teachings have practically nothing to do with physical and energy training.

On the other hand, he explains the line about transmission that is the topic in this thread in the following way:

"'Transmission beyond the tradition' refers to the methods of Zen cultivation that are different from the traditional ways practised in other schools of Buddhism. Hence, traditional methods like the cultivation of moral purity (as in Theravada), devotional worship of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas (as in many Mahayana schools), and the use of mantras (as in the Vajrayana tradition) are seldom found in Zen Buddhism. Even in the all-important practice of meditation, essential in all schools, is quite different in Zen meditation. Here the meditator focuses on the void, whereas other schools use the traditional method from Indian Buddhism where the meditator trains his mind to be one-pointed."
(Wong Kiew Kit: The Complete Book of Zen, p 185)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
Okay. But doesn't this apply equally to resting in the awareness of what arises? How is "resting in what arises" a specific state whereas "resting in the awareness of what arises" not?

Astus wrote:
Better not take it too literally. It simply expresses where there is no identification present. It does not mean taking the position of a watcher who is above appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 3rd, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
Why not just rest in what arises, rather than in *the awareness* of what arises? Isn't the latter placing a kind of extra layer of non-directness into the experience? Isn't simply tasting a mango more directly "real" than being aware of tasting a mango?

Astus wrote:
That is still proposing one should do something, that one should abide in a specific state. The point is to not grasp and not reject. Assuming an identity that is the same as what appears is grasping, and an identity that is separate from what appears is rejecting. The error lies in the concept that there is an identity.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 3rd, 2016 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
Astus wrote:
Lama Tashi Namgyal: On Tilopa's Six Essential Points of Meditation
(excerpt)

The mahasiddha Tilopa's six essential points of meditation contain the basic principles of placement meditation. The first point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, or follow thoughts about the past. Anything that arises concerning anything that occurred or one thought prior to the current moment, one should simply let go of, and the sooner the better. Ultimately, one should develop the discipline or the automatic habit of letting go of such thoughts instantly, on the spot, and one should learn to remain in such a state of "permanent let-go."
The second point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, get fixated on, or follow thoughts about the present. In particular, one should not fixate on either outer or inner phenomena.
The third point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, or speculate about the future or thoughts of the future, but to let go of them instantly as well.
The fourth point is not to meditate. One should resist, or let go of the temptation, which at some point always arises in the experience of beginning meditators, to improve or make better one's meditation by meditating on tranquility, or on the experience of emptiness, or on clarity, or on bliss, or by fabricating or contriving any other strategy to improve one's meditation. All such attempts to improve one's meditation by "meditating" are cul-de-sacs, and, as such, obstacles to meditation.
The fifth point is not to analyze. Although there are other forms of meditation that teach one to analyze one's experience, the ultimate goal of such analysis is to transcend analytical and conceptual impositions on one's experience altogether so that one will finally experience directly the true nature of mind, the true nature of experience, the true nature of reality. So in this approach, according to the fifth point, one should not analyze; one should not engage in the asking of such questions as, "What color is it? Where is it? How is it? Why is it? Does it have any shape or color or location or any other characteristics?" One should let go of all tendencies to analyze one's experience.
So, then, if one is not to be distracted by thoughts of past, present, or future; and if one is not to meditate and not to analyze, then what should one be doing? What is one's mind to hang on to? The answer is "nothing." Tilopa's sixth point is just to "leave it to itself." Whatever arises in the mind, one should neither welcome nor reject, neither encourage nor suppress - nor should one get lost in thoughts. In the words of Bokar Rinpoche there is "nothing to do;" nothing to do beyond resting in the awareness of the freshness of whatever arises.
(Shenpen Ösel, vol 1, no 2, p 36)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 3rd, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
The reason I have stayed with Tilopa is because it resonates strongly with me and helps me move in what I intuitively know is the right direction.

Astus wrote:
It's good that you have trust in Tilopa's words. Since they are merely six words, it's like the title of a book. Trying to intuit the content of a book from its title seems inconsiderate to me. So, if you want to know the content, you have to start reading. Similarly, if you want to understand those six words, you need to study the teachings and follow the instructions in those teachings. That's why many here recommend you to get in contact with a teacher.

rachmiel said:
I could follow each advice (as I understand them) to the letter and end up in a crystal-clear thusness state ... or a hypnagogic daze ... or trance ... or even asleep! And I'm looking to find out if all of these states are included in what Tilopa is pointing to, or just the first one.

Astus wrote:
You made up your interpretation, and then you try to match that with your experiences. The problem here is that this whole process is only your creation and Tilopa's words are used only as an excuse. What those words say is that grasp no state at all, and do not try to create any state either. What you describe goes in the opposite direction.

For a start, listen to what Lama Shenpen Rinpoche has to say about the first two advices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwxGL_QCuVk


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 3rd, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
What about attention, focus, awareness?

Astus wrote:
Tilopa is talking about Mahamudra, the ultimate state. What you are looking for is gradual training, methods to apply, and that is the problem. You can of course find step by step instructions, Mahamudra teachings are good at that. But Tilopa's six advices are for those who have already covered those stages.

Here is something for you to contemplate:

The past is already gone. The future does not exist yet. The present does not abide. Or as the http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html says in chapter 18: "the past thought is unobtainable, the present thought is unobtainable, and the future thought is unobtainable". When there is no thought to abide in, there is no more effort. But first you need to see for yourself the nature of thoughts.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Because his description of transmission perfectly describes the way my teacher teaches. And the way his certified instructors teach. And although I am only allowed to teach at a much lower level to friends and family, that is how I teach. It's how his teacher taught, and so on and so forth.

Astus wrote:
There is such a thing as training under supervision, however, that is not what the slogan "special transmission outside teachings" means. Receiving instructions from an elder practitioner is a basic requirement for any novice monastic, so there is nothing special about it, nor is it outside the teachings, since it is the teachings that one is instructed in, including methods of meditation. As I have noted before the expression gained currency in the Song era. Here is a short explanation for it:

"In the world of Sung Buddhism, there was no real debate over the substantive issues of sutra study by monks or the chanting of sutras as merit-making devices in Buddhist rites. Nor was there any great controversy over the practie of seated meditation (tso-ch'an), the importance of finding a good teacher, or the idea that every monk shoud seek the same realization of awakening as that attained by the founder of the order, Sakyamuni. All of those practices and values were taken for granted by all monks and were built into the structure of the Buddhist monastic institution as a whole, with scarcely any differences between the monasteries that were designated as Ch'an establishements and those that were not. The controversies that simmered in the Sung over the status of the Ch'an lineage as a "separate transmission," in short, were more about securing prestige, patronage, and special privileges within the Buddhist order than about practical matters of monkish training or spiritual cultivation. The "separate transmission" slogan was used successfully by proponents of Ch'an to argue that members of their lineage, having inherited the enlightenment of the Buddha in a direct line of "mind-to-mind transmission," were the monks most qualified for positions of leadership within the existing Buddhist monastic institution. The slogan was not used to promote any particular reforms of that institution from within, nor was it associated with any schismatic attempt to establish independent Ch'an monasteries that were "sectarian" in the technical sense of splitting off from an ecclesiastical mainstream."
(T. Griffith Fouls: Sung Controversies Concerning the "Separate Transmission" of Ch’an, in Buddhism in the Sung, p 220-221)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
I forgot to ask if these teachings included intensive practice under their guidance, or were in the form of academic encounters.

Astus wrote:
None were particularly academic, I have spent various length of time with various teachers. But if you are interested in details, just send me a PM here or on FB.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Malcolm said:
At this point, it would be apropos to ask from whom you learned Zen/Chan yourself. What is your lineage? Are you just going based on things that you have read, or have you actually practiced Zen/Chan under the direction and guidance of a qualified master.

Astus wrote:
It does not seem to be a relevant question to me. What difference does it make in discussing interpretations? But if you want to know.

I have learnt
- Chan from Shi Mingzheng, Shi Minglai, John Crook, Simon Child
- Seon from Antal Dobosy, Wu Bong SSN, Chong An Sunim JDPSN
- Zen from Sozui Zenni, Shodo Harada, Yvon Myoken Bec


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Actually, I completely agree with his definition, and come from a different lineage.

Astus wrote:
What sources do you base that on?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 5:15 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
DGA said:
I'm puzzled that Meido sensei's earlier post has been largely ignored, as it sets the table for a reasonable conversation suitable to the Zen forum.

Astus wrote:
He presented his interpretation of the phrases, what I assume fits the current theory about it in the lineage that he belongs to. But it does not seem to match the theories beyond that community nor teachings from past masters. So I don't see those definitions as generally applicable.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 5:09 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
As I've said previously, I'm fairly confident that the transmission the masters were referring to is a very advanced form of modeling, which is why they always drove the student to the edge first, and then they were ready to "receive" the teaching. Damo and Huike are the best example of this.

Astus wrote:
Such a model does not fit. What transmission is a model of is the imperial lineage that it was copied from, and it was meant to establish a higher authority of those belonging to the family than those who did not. That is the http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=98542#p98542 of transmission. The religious meaning of mind-to-mind transmission is what I've http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=357558#p357558 from Huangbo, that is, the realisation of no-mind.

Note: the term "special transmission outside teachings" first appeared in the Zutang Ji (952), and was set in the four line stanza first in 1108. It was a slogan used by the emerging Linji faction of the 11th century to boast its claims of orthodoxy and supremacy.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Suppose you go to court.
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Yes, exactly. My feeling is the customs I mentioned are duplicitous behavior.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism uses an intention based ethical system. A vow would be considered lying if one actually meant to mislead others. If it's merely following a custom, where one has no intention to cheat others, then there is no precept broken.

Monlam Tharchin said:
One expresses honor towards beings who, while objects of our compassionate vows, do not occupy the status of Honored Ones, which appropriately belongs to the Buddha, Dharma teachers, monastics, and so on.

Astus wrote:
Those are religious values. There are other values in the world as well. Expressing one's respect towards social order is not contrary to Buddhism, particularly in case of lay people.

Monlam Tharchin said:
I propose also that a truth-telling vow supposes there are two standards of truth: daily life, where one is expected to tell small lies to benefit oneself, exaggerate, lie through omission and so on; and the "real' truth where one is expected not to do these things.

Astus wrote:
Such are the drawbacks of the world.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Every thought, word, and act concern Buddhist cultivation, don't they?

Astus wrote:
Yes and no. There are precepts to draw the line. Lay people follow 5 training rules, fairly simple ones actually. There are no huge legal tomes in Buddhism governing every aspect of daily life, unlike in many other religions. Even the 10 unwholesome deeds are not too restricting.

Monlam Tharchin said:
One needn't shave one's head and leave home to attempt to bring every single situation to the path.

Astus wrote:
What path is it? The lay precepts are not in contradiction with most Western customs.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Unmindful speech to me is wrong speech, similar to how alcohol is itself not "wrong" but too easily leads to lapses where unskillful action can creep in.

Astus wrote:
That is a rule that you made up for yourself. What makes something unmindful anyway? One can commit all sorts of evil mindfully.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Many social norms, being rooted in the Three Poisons, have suffering as their fruit.

Astus wrote:
All acts of life are rooted in the three poisons. Of course, there is a difference between good and evil, nevertheless, they are both samsara.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Much of Buddhadharma constitutes going against the grain, which constitutes a wide range of behavior without necessarily getting into capital "A" Activism.

Astus wrote:
Does one go against a custom because it would cause pain to others, or is it merely to enforce some ideological principle on others?

Monlam Tharchin said:
The moment one takes the Bodhisattva Vows above the vows of society, one has become a social and language reformer, in my opinion, on a small or big scale.

Astus wrote:
The primary vow is compassion. One should never mistake that for upholding religious values.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Sure they do.

Astus wrote:
What canonical sources confirm your assumption about that transmission? And I'm not asking for some symbolic story, but explicit statements in sutras and treatises.

Jeff said:
The problem is that for most it is temporary unless the obstructions are actually let go by the receiver.

Astus wrote:
Buddhas could perform the transmission every moment incessantly.

Jeff said:
Havnt you ever felt the shift just being in the presence of a master? Like the mind shuts down and the fog is lifted just being in his/her presence?

Astus wrote:
That is a common experience of people who are devoted to another person, a place, or some other object of perception. That doesn't mean there are magical forces at work.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Such a mind to mind transmission is effectively the bypassing (or removal) of a perceived obstruction be the person receiving the transmission. Effectively since the emptiness is truly "known" by the transmitter, that knowledge can be temporarily extended (or shared).

Astus wrote:
If there were such a thing, buddhas would already have liberated all beings. However, no transmission like that exists, and everyone has to make effort individually.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Suppose you go to court.
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Will you agree to swear an oath to tell the truth?
Will you dress up nice and change your speech, using honorifics such as "your honor"?

Astus wrote:
If one is not a monastic, there are 5 precepts and 10 deeds to be mindful of. Neither of those contradict following the mentioned customs.

Dogen, Instructions for the Tenzo said:
I propose that doing either is problematic, and an example of what is spoken against in this quote: A person who is influenced by the quality of a thing, or who changes his speech or manner according to the appearance or position of the people he meets, is not a man working in the Way.

Astus wrote:
Read Vinaya and Rules of Purity works, then you'll see how strict a Buddhist legal environment can be. What seems to be referred to in your quote is duplicitous behaviour.

Dogen, Instructions for the Tenzo said:
Following the customs of intimidation and flattery in courtrooms therefore disrupts cultivation, unless we have highly stabilized our practice.

Astus wrote:
A single fly can disrupt cultivation.

Dogen, Instructions for the Tenzo said:
For those who would stress the ultimate emptiness of things such as legal vows and courtrooms, I enjoin us to keep the conversation in the realm of the run-of-the-mill practitioner whose realization is shallow and easily disturbed by intimidation and seeing/hearing of violence.

Astus wrote:
Since it's a run-of-the-mill practitioner with minimal abilities, such a person should focus on ethical discipline, generosity, and simple forms of rituals, like chanting and bowing. Consequently the problem of mundane activities disrupting one's cultivation is not an issue, unless one is about to break one's fundamental precepts.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Still, "court" is the dream we find ourselves in, and we are expected to follow the rules of the dream to hopefully help one charged with a crime.
So how do we bring our dharma practice fully to bear in such a situation?
That's what I'm wrestling with.
Some in this thread have said it means going with the flow and avoiding causing offense.
But what sentient beings call respect is often blameworthy. Gaining title, honor, esteem is delusion.
What sentient beings call disrespect is often praiseworthy, loosening their grip on the same.

Astus wrote:
Such concerns do not actually address Buddhist cultivation. Titles and customs are how societies are built. Even Buddhist monastic communities have them. If one thinks that they are a problem, one should first of all leave home (become a monk/nun), and then reside in some remote monastery. But for lay people their whole life is filled with obstacles, unless they can attain wisdom despite such circumstances, but then we are no longer talking about run-of-the-mill people.

Monlam Tharchin said:
So to the topic, (1) if one knows an oath is being given peremptorily with no regard even to its meaning, does it reflect conduct "as fine as flour" to grunt "yep" while the court officer moves automatically down the line?

Astus wrote:
It is irrelevant as long as it does not fall into the category of wrong speech.

Monlam Tharchin said:
(2) If one feels "there is only the one taste of the great ocean of life," that these lawyers and judge are our mothers, and that we aspire to lift them out of the boiling cauldron of samsara, does it show integrity to avoid any expression of vows which might upset someone?

Astus wrote:
What would upset who?
Knowing universal emptiness means one is not moved by appearances. It doesn't mean one falls into endless worry, quite the opposite actually.

Monlam Tharchin said:
With vows as lofty as those of a bodhisattva, I'm not sure one would remain indistinguishable in speech, behavior, and lifestyle from those utterly lost in confusion.

Astus wrote:
Acting patiently and compassionately does not mean one becomes a social/language reformer.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
muni said:
Regarding directly pointing/direct transmission outside of scriptures, these problems aren’t. It is always fresh from the timeless "source". It would sound funny to say give me a newer version.

Astus wrote:
Sutras point to the same emptiness as teachers do. There is not and can not be any difference. And like half-educated teachers who mislead students, wrong translations mislead readers.

It should also be understood that the mind-to-mind transmission is beyond all words. That applies not only to written, but also to spoken words as well. Such transmission is not some secret code or mystical energy, but seeing the truth of the Dharma in one's personal experience. And that truth means that all phenomena are empty, without anything to be grasped.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 4:33 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Did you miss this part of the quoted text regarding books...
Mahamati, you and akk the Bodhisattvas must seek for this inner self-realisation of Noble Wisdom, and not be captivated by word-teachings.

Astus wrote:
That is the whole point of any teaching, to be used for insight. However, without the teaching there is no direction for insight, hence the need for the teachings, i.e. the scriptures.

Jeff said:
I mean chapter seven where they talk about flying celestial vehicles (transmission to get to people)...

Astus wrote:
You should use some newer translations for the Lotus Sutra. "Brahma-angels" and "aerial cars" make little sense. The chapter talks of brahmas, a type of gods, and their palaces, i.e. their heavenly abodes. Your interpretation as "cars for transmitting the Dharma" does not fit.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
the advice applies equally to other modes of Zen practice? My impression is yes, which is why I thought of this thread when I read the passage

Astus wrote:
Since Zen practice is no-thought, and no-thought means being free from all entanglements, it is truer for that than for buddha-remembrance.

As Huineng taught (Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK ed p 40):

“Good friends, if you wish to cultivate this practice, you may do so either as a householder or in a monastery. Householders who are able to practice this are like those persons of the East whose minds [harbor] good. Those in the monastery who do not cultivate it are like those people of the West whose minds [harbor] evil. It is only that the mind should be pure—then it is the Western [Paradise] of the self-nature!”

And Linji (tr Sasaki, p 15, 16),

"You who today study the Way must have faith in yourselves. Don’t seek outside or you’ll just go on clambering after the realm of worthless dusts, never distinguishing true from false. [Notions] like ‘There are buddhas, there are patriarchs’ are no more than matters in the teachings."
...
"Whatever comes along, don’t accept it. One thought of doubt, and instantly the demon [māra] enters your mind. Even a bodhisattva, when in doubt, is taken advantage of by the demon of birth-and-death. Just desist from thinking, and never seek outside. If something should come, illumine it. Have faith in your activity revealed now—there isn’t a thing to do.
One thought of your mind produces the three realms and, in accordance with causal conditions and influenced by circumstances, the division into the six dusts takes place. What is lacking in your present responsive activity! In an instant you enter the pure, enter the dirty, enter the Tower of Maitreya, enter the Land of the Three Eyes, and everywhere you travel all you see are empty names."

And Dogen ( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html ):

"Although they say that there are ten thousand distinctions and a thousand variations, they just wholeheartedly engage the way in zazen. Why leave behind the seat in your own home to wander in vain through the dusty realms of other lands? If you make one misstep, you stumble past what is directly in front of you."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 30th, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
I found this quote in a book I'm reading, and it seemed germane to the discussion.

Astus wrote:
The paragraphs following what you quoted should also be considered:

"The ancients taught us to approach enlightened teachers, and seek spiritual  friends, [that is], men and women of knowledge. But enlightened teachers do not have any  means to transmit mind  or  impart  secret  methods:  all  they  do  for  people  is  release  sticking  points  and  remove bonds. This is the esoteric secret.
Today we  just recite the buddha-name with unified mindfulness without confusion. This formulation is the esoteric method for releasing sticking points and removing bonds. This is the grand highway out of birth and death. 
Recite  the  buddha-name  morning  and  night.  Recite  it  when  you are  walking  and  when you  are  sitting.  When  your  mindfulness  [of  Buddha]  is  continuous,  then  it  spontaneously becomes  a samadhi,  that  is,  a  stable  state  of  concentration.  Then  you  will  not  seek  further  elsewhere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Hong here points out that a teacher cannot do more than what one can achieve with the practice of buddha-remembrance.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 29th, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Hopefully, we can agree that the Lankavatara sutra is pretty universally accepted in Zen. From the second chapter on the point...

Astus wrote:
The quoted section confirms one of the http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_reliances, namely "rely on the meaning, not just on the words". That is standard Mahayana. It does not negate the importance of scriptures at all.

Jeff said:
On transmissions themselves, there is some good stuff in the Lotus sutra about them and the turning of the wheel by Buddha that allowed them.

Astus wrote:
What exactly are you referring to?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 29th, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Soma999 said:
on a relative level, there as been a transmission.

Astus wrote:
On the relative level there is no such mind meld you seem to describe.

Soma999 said:
But you received, relatively, something, that created the experience.

Astus wrote:
What exactly was received?

Soma999 said:
Speaking about those subject is trying to grasp the wind. It has to be lived. Otherwise, it creates confusion.

Astus wrote:
If you say there is a mystical transmission, that is speaking. To say that it cannot be explained is merely excusing oneself from explaining one's own statement.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Yes, you are correct.  Books are basically useless.  Like the proverbial looking at the finger instead of the moon, let alone "becoming the moon".

Astus wrote:
As Huineng, the Sixth Patriarch of Chan instructed (Platform Sutra, ch 10, tr BTTS):

"Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, ‘not established’ are themselves written.
When they hear others speaking, they slander them by saying that they are attached to written words. You should know that to be confused as they are may be permissible, but to slander the Buddha’s Sutras is not. Do not slander the Sutras for if you do, your offense will create countless obstacles for you."

Jeff said:
Mind to mind transmission (or connecting mind streams) makes a vast difference.  Think of it like you are trapped in your own bubble of sense of self. The transmission of a true master is better described as the master can connect mind streams and get "inside of your bubble".  That connection creates sort of a crack in the wall of your bubble of self.  The "luminosity" shines through the crack helping you to break down the walls.
Authors make money from writing books, but "clarity" can be shared by a master.

Astus wrote:
Where do you get those baseless assertions from? I guess not from any sutras or authentic Buddhist teachings, since you consider them useless.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Apparently there is still a misunderstanding of what "transmission" means. There is nothing transmitted, it is merely an expression in the sense that when one attains genuine insight, one carries on the torch of the Buddha's realisation.

"People of the world hear it said that the Buddhas all transmit the Dharma of mind, and they take it that there is a Dharma apart from the mind that can be realized and grasped. They search for the Dharma with the mind, not understanding that the mind is the Dharma and the Dharma is the mind. You cannot search for the mind with the mind—you will pass through a thousand and ten thousand eons [trying] and never get it. [Such useless efforts] are not equal to right now achieving no-mind—this is the fundamental Dharma."
(Huangbo: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 18)

"You cannot seek the mind with the mind, you cannot seek the Buddha with the Buddha, and you cannot seek the Dharma with the Dharma. Therefore, trainees should achieve no-mind right now. Simply conform with [the mind] in silence—if you try to use the mind you will miss it.
To transmit the mind with the mind—this is the correct view. I warn you, do not look outward and chase after realms but recognize that the realms are the mind. [To commit this error would be] to accept the thief as one’s own child."
(Huangbo, p 22)

[The questioner] said: If one is without dependency, how can [the mind of the patriarchs] be transmitted?
The master said: The mind is transmitted with the mind.
[The questioner] said: If the mind is transmitted, how can you say that the mind is also nonexistent?
The master said: To not attain a single dharma is called the transmission of the mind. If you comprehend this mind, then there is no mind and no dharma.
[The questioner] said: If there is no mind and no dharma, why do you call it a transmission?
The master said: You have heard me say “transmission of the mind” and have taken it that there is something that can be attained. It is for this reason that the patriarch said, “When one recognizes the mind-nature, it should be called inconceivable. Clearly and distinctly without anything that is attained, when one attains it one does not speak of it as understanding.” If I taught this to you how would you be able to understand it?
(Huangbo, p 36)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
NoToo said:
Would you please let me know where the following is from.

Astus wrote:
It is there in my signature:
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1
2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto
3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia
4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: are you someone special?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
how do you regard yourself as not superior, not inferior, and not equal? we also must not have identity,  or?  for example, if you have identity x, and another being has identity y, surely they would be regarded as not equal (as well as potentially similar, etc...).

Astus wrote:
As the quoted Sona Sutta says, when the aggregates are seen in terms of "this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self", then one sees correctly, and there is no basis any more for such comparisons. Conceit is one of the ten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_%28Buddhism%29 that eventually one has to be free from.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 3:42 PM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
The sutra speaks only about the arising and ceasing. And certainly it could not mean that one mind will arise and then another different mind will cease, which would be chaos.

Astus wrote:
All four mental aggregates are momentary, just like the body. Even Yogacara accepts the momentariness of mind.

maybay said:
The body on the other hand can arise, change, and cease (as the same body).

Astus wrote:
All composite things are impermanent, both body and mind.

What are the characteristics of Impermanence? In brief, they are of twelve kinds: [1] characteristic of unreality, [2] characteristic of destruction, [3] characteristic of transformation, [4] characteristic of separation, [5] characteristic of presence, [6] characteristic of essential nature (dbarmatalaksana), [7] characteristic of momentariness, [8] characteristic of continuity, [9] characteristic of disease, etc., [10] characteristic of the varied continuity of the mind, [11] characteristic of good or bad fortune, [12] characteristic of the devolution and evolution of the receptacle-world.
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 85-86)

maybay said:
So a body obstructs the arising of another body, and instead undergoes deformation. This does not happen with mind and mental states.

Astus wrote:
Is there a body that exists beyond a single moment in your view?

maybay said:
There is no persisting substance, change is merely the characteristic of form.

Astus wrote:
Change is a characteristic of all impermanent phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 3:19 PM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
Malcolm said:
What is the most common Sanskrit term it represents?

Astus wrote:
No idea.

Here's the DDB's http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/indexes/term-sa.html glossary, and for zhi 知 there are 423 results. And as for the possible English translations of zhi 知 it gives:
To know, to realize, to understand, to be aware of.
To appreciate, distinguish, be acquainted with.
To recall, to see.
To inform, to let know.
Knowledge, awareness, consciousness, ability to know. Wisdom.
To find out the "most common" would take some in depth search or a good source.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
This just proves my point Astus.

Astus wrote:
What part? You said that mind does not change. That sutra emphasises specifically that the mind changes rapidly, and we can easily recognise that.

maybay said:
Impermanence is another word for death. But change is another word for alteration.

Astus wrote:
The difference you make between change and impermanence is that with change you imply a persisting substance, and such a view is inadmissible in the Buddhist analysis of the skandhas. I don't even see the point in making up such a distinction.

"there is no form... no feeling... no perception... there are no fabrications... there is no consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change (http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:2314.pali), that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.097.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
No only form changes. If change was a characteristic of the other aggregates then there would be no (mistaken) sense of permanence. What was a good feeling doesn't turn into a bad feeling. The recognition of blue doesn't change to a recognition of purple. The formation of disgust doesn't morph into the formation of scepticism. The cognition of one thing will not change into another thing. It is only form that changes, and consequently one experiences different feelings, perceptions etc. As form changes so the continuity of experiencing it, the perception of its blueness etc is disrupted.

Astus wrote:
I think you should change your mind about that.

Appearances are momentary, both mental and material.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
Malcolm said:
What does zhi mean in Sanskrit?

Astus wrote:
It can be a translation of various words. According to the Buddhist Chinese-Sanksrit Great Dictionary (佛教漢梵大辭典 ):

√jñā, -jña, jñāna, vi-√jñā, pra-√jñā, √vid, -vid, ava-√budh; ajyate, adhigata, adhi-√gam, adhigamana, anugata, anugama, anujñāpita, anu-pra-√viś, anupraviṣṭa, anu-√budh, anubodha, anumāna, anusāritva, anusmaraṇatā, antara-jña, abhi-√gam, -abhijña, abhi-√jñā, abhisaṃbodhanatā, abhisaṃbodhi, ava-√gam, avagama, ava-√gāh, avatāra, avatīrṇa, ava-√tṝ, avadhāraka, avabudhyanatā, avabodha, avabodhana, avê(√i), avêkṣ(√īkṣ), avetya, ā-√jñā, ājñā, ājñākhya, ājñāta, ājñātāva, ājñāna, ājñêndriya, ājñeya, āsada, ucyate, udaya, upalakṣaṇa, upalakṣyate, upalabdhi, eṣṭavya, kovida, √kṣam, gatiṃ-gata, √gam, gamyate, gāmin, √gāh, √grah, grahaṇa, cetana, jānaka, jñāta, jñāpita, jñeya, dṛśyate, dṛṣṭvā, draṣṭavya, nidhyapti, nidhyāpta, niścaya, parāyaṇa, parikuśala, pari-cchid(√chid), pari-√ñā, parijñā, parijñāta, parijñāna, parijñānatā, parijñāyate, prajāna, prajānat*, prajñā, prajñāna, pratijñāyate, prati-√budh, pratibhāvayati, prativijñapti, prati-vi-√jñā, prativijñāna, pratividdha, prativibhāvayati, prativedha, prati-√vyadh, pratisaṃvidita, pratisaṃvedana, pratī(√i), praty-anu-√bhū, pratyabhijñā, pratyabhijñāna, pra-vi-√ci, buddhi, budhyanatā, budhyanā, bodha, bhajana, mata, √man, manas, lakṣyate, labdha, va-√gāh, vicārayati, vi-√ci, vijñapti, vijñā, vijñāta, vijñāpana, vijñāyate, vidita, vidhi-jña, vibuddhana, vibhāvayati, vibhāvita, vibhāvyate, vettṛ, veda, veditavya, vedin, saṃ-lakṣaya (den.), saṃ-√jñā, sam-anu-√dṛś, sam-anu-√paś, sam-anv-ā-√hṛ, sam-√āp, samudāgama, saṃ-√jñā, saṃ-pra-√dṛś, suniścita, smṛti.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
Sorry I meant change, not impermanence.

Astus wrote:
What's the difference? What is impermanent changes, what changes is impermanent. All five aggregates change.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
Malcolm said:
"Awareness" is a term which is next to useless in a Buddhist context.

Astus wrote:
What do you suggest? https://books.google.com/books?id=bUgg9aWaAH8C translated zhi 知 as "knowing".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
Malcolm said:
This the basic problem with translated the term "rigpa" as "awareness."
It simply does not work.

Astus wrote:
Doesn't have to be "rigpa". Buddha-nature has been identified as awareness (zhi 知) by some Chan teachers as well. Interestingly, zhi 知 means both "to know" and "to be aware".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
Just the way you write this makes me think you believe the aggregates have some reality.

Astus wrote:
As you say, they are categories of experience.

maybay said:
they bear different characteristics, e.g. form has the characteristic of impermanence.

Astus wrote:
All five are impermanent. All five are empty. All five are awareness, i.e. experiences. Those are actually universal characteristics that are true for all five of them.

maybay said:
It's just the way you worded it. Sounds like you're trying to mix together too many systems of thought. In a thread on skandhas we shouldn't really be talking about awareness. We shouldn't need to.

Astus wrote:
That's what this topic is about. As it asks in the OP: "How does consciousness divide from awareness?"


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 26th, 2016 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
At some point you're going to have to account for the deluded condition.

Astus wrote:
Delusion is the mistaken view that there is anything stable in the aggregates and thus forming an identification with it.

maybay said:
If pristine awareness is the sky, then it is meaningful to say clouds of confused appearances obscure that awareness.

Astus wrote:
The sky and clouds are merely a metaphor. Ignorance is not separate from the aggregates, just as ignorance is not separate from awareness. Recognising ignorance to be empty awareness is freedom from ignorance.

What is ignorance? Good sons, all sentient beings fall into various inverted views without beginning. Just like a disoriented person who confuses the four directions, they mistakenly take the Four Elements as the attributes of their bodies and the conditioned shadows of the Six Objects as the attributes of their mind. It is just like when our eyes are diseased and we see flowers in the sky, or a second moon. Good sons, the sky actually has no flowers—they are the false attachment of the diseased person. And because of this false attachment, not only are we confused about the self-nature of the sky; we are also mixed up about the place where real flowers come from. From this there is the falsely existent transmigration through life and death. Therefore it is called "ignorance."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/sutra_of_perfect_enlightenment.html )

maybay said:
The sky is always there. It just becomes unrecognizable.

Astus wrote:
As I have said before, awareness and emptiness are qualities of the aggregates. There is no separate awareness. Is impermanence ever unrecognisable? It is always recognisable. But as long as one keeps to the idea of permanence, it is not recognised.

maybay said:
You seem to be suggesting that the skandhas are always A. Experienced and B. Empty. But it is wrong to say that they are always experienced as empty.

Astus wrote:
I have not said they are always experienced as empty. Whatever experience there is, it is always empty: without essence, without self, without anything to grasp. The question is whether one recognises it or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 26th, 2016 at 4:04 PM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
maybay said:
Awareness never drops away. It just gets clouded over with obscurations. The consciousnesses that we cling to are a confusion.

Astus wrote:
Awareness is never clouded. Awareness is not separate from the skandhas, just as emptiness is not separate from them. Awareness means that skandhas are experienced, and it is a quality that is always true, just as they are always empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 26th, 2016 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Why is Amitabha absent in American Zen and TB?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The first major teacher of Pure Land and Chan together was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongming_Yanshou, who was likely the most outstanding Buddhist teacher in early Song China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongfeng_Mingben, an heir of Gaofeng Yuanmiao (1238-1296) - the one who invented the method of the three essentials of kanhua chan, i.e. faith, determination, doubt - taught Pure Land practices, just as his disciple Tianru Weize (1286-1355) whose work "Doubts and Questions about Pure Land" (淨土或問) has been translated to English and published in "Pure Land Buddhism - Dialogs with Ancient Masters" ( http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf ).

It is a rather mistaken view to call it a combination or syncretism, since they have not really existed separately, and this view of a Zen corrupted by Pure Land is a late Japanese interpretation used against the Obaku school and Chinese teachers in the 18th century, then later taken up by early Western scholars and projected on Chinese Buddhism following Japanese scholarship.

Meido said:
What I have not found, however, is the opposite: Zen teachings interpreted in light of Pure Land teachings e.g. that Zen's "seeing nature/becoming Buddha" really means that one will attain rebirth in Amitabha's Pure Land.

Astus wrote:
Birth is attained through faith, vow, and practice. One may practice Zen and aim for birth in the Pure Land. In fact, it is recommended to aim for birth there, because seeing one's nature is no easy thing, and even after that one can still fall back and encounter numerous hindrances. At the same time, all bodhisattvas are said to aspire towards the Pure Land.

This is often quoted from Yongming:

有禪無淨土 十人九錯路
陰境若現前 瞥爾隨他去
無禪有淨土 萬修萬人去
但得見彌陀 何愁不開悟
有禪有淨土 猶如帶角虎
現世為人師 當來作佛祖
無禪無淨土 鐵床并銅柱
萬劫與千生 沒箇人依怙

"With Ch'an without the Pure Land
Nine people out of ten take the wrong road.
If the skandhic states appear,
Instantly they follow.
Without ch'an but with pure land
Ten thousand cultivate and ten thousand go.
You only need see Amitabha
And what worry is there of no enlightenment?
With Ch'an and with Pure Land
One is like a tiger wearing horns.
In the present acting as people's teacher,
In the future one will be a patriarch.
Without Ch'an and without Pure Land,
It's the iron bed and the brass pillar.
In ten thousand kalpas and a thousand lives,
There is no one you can turn to."
( http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/1_100/vbs72/72_1.html, see also: Original Teachings of Ch'an Buddhism, p 236)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 24th, 2016 at 5:15 PM
Title: Re: are you someone special?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"What is pride (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na)? It is exaltation of the mind (cittasyonnatih) which rests on the idea of self. Its function consists of giving a basis to the appearance of contempt (agaurava) and suffering."
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 12)

"Soṇa, when any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of form—which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves thus: ‘I am superior,’ or ‘I am equal,’ or ‘I am inferior,’ what is that due to apart from not seeing things as they really are?
When any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of feeling … on the basis of perception … on the basis of volitional formations … on the basis of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves thus: ‘I am superior,’ or ‘I am equal,’ or ‘I am inferior,’ what is that due to apart from not seeing things as they really are?
Soṇa, when any ascetics and brahmins do not, on the basis of form—which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves thus: ‘I am superior,’ or ‘I am equal,’ or ‘I am inferior,’ what is that due to apart from seeing things as they really are?
When any ascetics and brahmins do not, on the basis of feeling … on the basis of perception … on the basis of volitional formations … on the basis of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves thus: ‘I am superior,’ or ‘I am equal,’ or ‘I am inferior,’ what is that due to apart from seeing things as they really are?"
( https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.49 )

THE NINE CONCEITS
One produces the conceit: "I am superior to others who are superior"; or one produces the conceit: "I am equal to the superior ones"; or one produces the conceit: "I am inferior to the superior ones;" or one produces the conceit: "I am superior to others who are like me;" or one produces the conceit: "I am inferior to others who are like me;" or one produces the conceit: "I am superior to those who are inferior;" or one produces the conceit: "I am equal to those who are inferior;" or one produces the conceit: "I am inferior to others who are inferior". These nine conceits are destroyed through the Path of Saintship.
(Vimuttimagga, p 317)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 24th, 2016 at 4:14 PM
Title: Re: Why is Amitabha absent in American Zen and TB?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Why should Amitabha appear in Soto Zen at all? He is nowhere included in the http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/sutra/scriptures.html. Officially Shakyamuni is the "main image of worship" (honzon 本尊) of the school. Kannon has a special place, as the example of the perfect bodhisattva. As for aiming for birth in Sukhavati, that is meaningless for one who understands that zazen is practice-enlightenment.

"Even if up to now, you have thought that a buddha has excellent characteristics like Shakyamuni or Amitabha, radiates a halo, has the virtue of preaching the dharma and benefiting living beings, you should believe your teacher if he says that buddha is nothing but a toad or an earthworm, and throw your former ideas away. However, if you look for some excellent characteristics, a halo, or other virtues of a buddha on the toad or the earthworm, you still have not reformed your discriminating mind. Just understand what you see right now is buddha. If you continually reform your discriminating mind and fundamental attachment in this way according to your teacher’s instruction, you will naturally become one with the Way.
Students today, however, cling to their own discriminating minds. Their thinking is based on their own personal views that buddha must be such and such; if it goes against their ideas, they say that buddha cannot be that way.
Having such an attitude and wandering here and there in delusion, searching after what conforms to their preconceptions, few of them ever make any progress in the Buddha-Way."
(Dogen: http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/common_html/zuimonki/01-13.html )

If you are looking for PL related elements, Chinese and Vietnamese Buddhist communities usually have them.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 23rd, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Flavors of Nationalism... and the wind tossed seas of Open Dharma
Content:
Virgo said:
People think about nationalism as long as their country is prospering,is lawful, and is a nice place to be in

Astus wrote:
I'd say it's the opposite. When things seem to be in a bad condition it is easy to turn to nationalist ideas and blame "the others" for all the problems. Same goes for religion. People care little about abstract ideas as long as there is ample source of material comfort and entertainment. Of course, the philosopher (wisdom lover) is a different kind, and like the Buddha, leaves behind vulgar pleasures even when they are available.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Astus wrote:
"In brief, the chief thing that sravakas must realize is the selflessness of the person. To understand that, they must eliminate grasping at the aggregates as true [things]. This is because “grasping at truth qua grasping at the truth of the aggregates” is the ever-present power that is the direct cause of the apprehension of the self of the person."
(Gorampa: Distinguishing the Views of Emptiness, in Freedom from Extremes, p 225)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Flavors of Nationalism... and the wind tossed seas of Open Dharma
Content:
maybay said:
If someone says sit Japanese style u know what they mean.  But if u talking to Japanese people its inappropriate. You should say seiza or whatever.

Astus wrote:
Seiza 正座 literally means correct 正 sitting 座. When a buddha or bodhisattva sits like that, it's called Yamato-suwari 大和座り, i.e. Japanese sitting. http://lapizlazuri.net/yamatosuwari.html are some examples. So, you could actually tell a Japanese to sit in the Japanese style.

The opposite of correct/Japanese sitting is agura 胡座 that means barbarian (foreign) 胡 sitting 座, and it refers to sitting cross-legged, i.e. Indian style.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
This says volumes, then of course there is Sthiramati's commentary on this work.

Astus wrote:
Does it? Sounds like the same argument used before.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Flavors of Nationalism... and the wind tossed seas of Open Dharma
Content:
Queequeg said:
Astus, see the first post in this thread.
I specifically addressed race or culture as basis for national identity and offered the American version as alternative.

Astus wrote:
Jews are not a race, nor are Germans, even if pre-1945 imagined biological traits of every nation were considered real and scientific. National identity of any kind is nationalism - it only takes a nicely tailored historical narrative to make up a nation.

Queequeg said:
This points to American Nationalism being something fundamentally different than say, nationalism in the UK, or Germany, or Ukraine, or Russia, or whatever. Race or culture or religion does not matter to most of us as much as fundamental commitment to certain ideals, to a certain social contract.
The moment American nationalism becomes racial, I think it loses its meaning.

Astus wrote:
That's actually a very good start. One first has to establish why one's nation is unique, special. From that come the concepts of being outstanding and superior. Leader of the free world. Germans, French, Italians, and English each consider their nation better than the other three, and there is no need to add racism here, since all four are traditionally white societies. To give an example how even racism is not that straightforward, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan. It's always "certain ideals" that matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Arhats have an inferior conversion, according to Asanga, because arhats are afraid of transmigration and reject it since their realization of emptiness is confined to the selflessness of the person.

Astus wrote:
The Samgraha says nothing new on the matter, just that arhats know only personal emptiness while bodhisattvas the dual emptiness. It does not really discuss the aggregates in relation to the arhats. So, I don't think that work is of much help here.

"This conversion of support has six varieties: ... 5) inferior conversion— the realization by word-hearers of the non-self of persons, which completely turns away from transmigration and constitutes an eternal rejection of transmigration; 6) extensive conversion—the realization by bodhisattvas of the non-self of things, wherein by understanding the merits of quietude and insight, they both abandon and do not abandon [transmigration]."
(Samgraha 9.2, BDK ed. p 100)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
The aggregates of an arhat are not transformed because they have not realized dharmakāya.
The buddhas do not have cetana, because of the transformation of the samskara skandha.

Astus wrote:
So there are the upadana-skandhas, the anupadana-skandhas, and what is the third version?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Flavors of Nationalism... and the wind tossed seas of Open Dharma
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't really see how patriotism/nationalism can sound anything acceptable to those who are not on the right wing side of the political spectrum. It sounds to me a harmful idea used for harmful purposes, both in the past and the present.

Here's a fine example of patriotism/nationalism:

Since the mid 19th century Jews in Austria-Hungary rapidly assimilated into the mainstream culture and accepted the national identity as their own. This reached the point where in the late 1930's Jews actively supported the Hungarian government, despite the anti-Jewish laws already in effect. The last time there was a thanksgiving service for a Hungarian head of state by Jews was for the 76th birthday of the governor and regent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doh%C3%A1ny_Street_Synagogue of Budapest, on 18 June 1944. They had already heard about what happened to Jews in other countries and in other parts of Hungary, but they believed that it could never happen to them, since they are Hungarians. Deportations from Budapest began on 30 June.

And as for collective responsibility:

3.5 million Germans were expelled from Poland by 1950, and the death toll was around 400,000. 2.4 million Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia between 1945-48, with a death toll around 15,000. 239,000 Germans were expelled from Hungary, the death toll was about 11,000.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Agreement#Expulsions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene%C5%A1_decrees#Loss_of_citizenship_and_confiscation_of_property.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Anupadāna-skandhas are the transformed aggregates.

Astus wrote:
That's what arhats have. How is there any difference then between arhats and buddhas in terms of the aggregates?

Malcolm said:
Arhats may be without craving, but they still have cetana.

Astus wrote:
Since even buddhas can be described by aggregates without attachment, they have cetana too. Furthermore, cetana is a universal mental factor, necessary for any mental function.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Sentient Light said:
According to Vasubandhu, jñana is pure unmediated cognition, empty of conceptions, perceptions, etc. It is stainless, the surface of water after all debris has been cleared away.

Astus wrote:
Where does he write that?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
No one accepts that afflictions are a precondition for the arising of the mind, if one does, it renders the Pabhassara Sutta meaningless.

Astus wrote:
If that were the case, then no school could posit the disperse of the aggregates following parinirvana of the arhat. And that contradicts the accusation of the Hinayana schools' annihilationist view.

Malcolm said:
He just means upadana skandhas. For example, it well known that the mental aggregate transforms into the four pristine consciousness according to the Mahayānasamgraha

Astus wrote:
If aggregates without attachment may continue, then there is no point in their transformation, nor in changing vijnana into jnana.

Malcolm said:
And nevertheless the Buddha has five aggregates.

Astus wrote:
Aren't they supposed to change into the four/five wisdoms?

Malcolm said:
In the case of an arhat, what sustains their consciousness until they are aroused from the slumber of the samadhi of cessation is their intention to enter that samadhi.

Astus wrote:
Arhats are supposed to be without all kinds of craving. And craving for existence (bhavatanha) or non-existence (vibhavatanha) are two basic types of desire.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Therefore, you are asserting that afflictions are a necessary precondition for the arising of the mind, period.

Astus wrote:
And apparently so does everyone else who accept the twelve nidanas as Buddhadharma.

Even the Uttaratantra states:

"It is true happiness, since [even] the aggregates
of mental nature and their causes are reversed."
(v 38)

And DJKR comments:

"The dharmakaya has no aggregates, not even the subtlest aggregates, nor the cause of such aggregates, which is ignorance. When there is no ignorance and no result of ignorance, namely the aggregates, there is no suffering. That is transcendental bliss."
(p 46-47)

Malcolm said:
So you think buddhas are pieces of wood, inert, like rocks.

Astus wrote:
As the Uttaratantra states, they make no effort, and all activities are illusory.

"Here the meaning of the chapter is as follows:
The nine aspects of physical display and so on
[show] that the Teacher has no birth and death,
and yet perfectly manifests without any effort.
Something that, similar to Indra, the drum, clouds, Brahma,
the sun, the precious king of wish-granting gems, an echo, space,
and the earth, effortlessly and as long as existence may last
fulfils others’ benefit is only conceived of by [supreme] yogis."
(v 363-364)

Malcolm said:
Jñāna. The only difference between dualistic consciousness (vijñāna) and pristine consciousness (jñāna) is the presence and absence of the vi- prefix. They are both a kind of consciousness, however, and they exist on a continuum. With the removal of obscurations of both afflictions and knowledge, vijñan̄a gradually becomes jn̄āna.

Astus wrote:
When vijnana loses the two obscurations and only jnana remains, what is it that maintains the continuity? If you say it's the aspirations, then those vows were added to vijnana and the continuity is not the result of the absence of defilements.

Malcolm said:
Buddhahood is a supramundane jñana.

Astus wrote:
And what does that actually mean? A buddha is without thoughts, lacks the functions of the five aggregates, all activities are automatic, and the effect on beings is solely dependent on the deluded perception defined by their karma. From the perspective of beings, it's always their own conceptualisations they perceive. From the perspective of the buddha, well, a buddha has no perspective at all, and does nothing whatsoever.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
This does not show that the mind arises because of afflictions. It merely shows that mind is conditioned by afflictions.

Astus wrote:
When there is one, there is the other, when the one is not, then the other is not - that is the basic structure of dependent origination. If it were to say that there are all these 12 elements lying around influencing, but not generating, each other, then it could not even be called origination.

Maybe this is explicit enough then:

"When, friends, a noble disciple understands consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
And what is consciousness, what is the origin of consciousness, what is the cessation of consciousness, what is the way leading to the cessation of consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
When a noble disciple has thus understood consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
...
"With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations."
...
"With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance."
...
"With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#vinnana; see also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.035.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html )

"Through the cessation of this and that,
This and that will not be manifest.
That which is only a mass of suffering
Will thus completely cease."
(MMK 26.12, tr Samten-Garfield)

Malcolm said:
Are you also proposing Buddhas are like pieces of wood? Without any consciousness at all?

Astus wrote:
"Buddha-activity is unceasing because it is devoid of conceptualising"
(Uttaratantra 7.284, tr Holmes)

Beings experience buddhas and lands dependent on their perception. Buddhas are beyond thought and intention. What kind of consciousness is there to be for them?

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html )

"One who holds firmly
That the Tathagata exists
Will have to fabricate his nonexistence
After having achieved nirvana.
Since he is essentially empty,
Neither the thought that the Buddha exists
Nor that he does not exist
After having achieved nirvana is tenable."
(MMK 22.13-14)

Malcolm said:
Are you further proposing that afflictions are inherent to the skandhas?

Astus wrote:
No.

Malcolm said:
Likewise, if the cause of the mind is ignorance (wheat seed) it is impossible that a mind could ever be awakened (lotus), since its nature and its continuum is inherently ignorant (wheat), since its cause is ignorance (wheat seed).

Astus wrote:
Is a buddha a consciousness?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
In Chapter 3 of the Kośabhaṣyaṃ, Vasubandhu, representing the Sautrantika point of view, rejects the idea, quite decisively, that ignorance is the first cause of the 12 nidanas.

Astus wrote:
Is this what you're referring to?

"From defilement there arises defilement and action; from whence foundation; from whence a new foundation and defilement: such is the manner of existence of the parts of existence or bhavangas."
(Kosha, III.27; vol 2, p 407)

That simply means that ignorance is not without a cause, and of course there is no "first cause" either. What I said was that ignorance is the root of the defilements.

Malcolm said:
And the Buddha never says anywhere that afflictions are the cause of the mind.

Astus wrote:
A small reminder of the twelve nidanas then: ignorance -> formations -> consciousness -> name and form (name = consciousness) -> six ayatanas (sixth ayatana = consciousness).

"Only the skandhas, conditioned by defilement and action, go reincarnating themselves by means of the series of intermediate existences. As an example: the lamp."
(III.18a-d; vol 2, p 399)

Do you propose a consciousness beyond the five aggregates?

Malcolm said:
We can know from many sources, including the Pabhassara Sutta, that afflictions are not inherent to the mind.

Astus wrote:
Afflictions are not inherent to the mind, and that's not been stated here. What is stated is that ignorance gives rise to birth, and birth includes the birth of consciousness.

Malcolm said:
If the mind arose from affliction, it could never be free of affliction

Astus wrote:
Wheat grows from the soil, but bread should not have soil in it. And there is the well known metaphor of the lotus. The whole world is said to arise from ignorance.

Malcolm said:
If we follow your idea, it would seem that all there is samsara, and ultimately, when the mind ceases, samsara ceases.

Astus wrote:
When there is no more birth there is no more samsara. I have not realised this is my idea.

Malcolm said:
Why?

Astus wrote:
I'm not asking to leave Dzogchen out, but simply to provide others who support it.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
If ignorance were the ultimate or first cause of the mind (it isn't) than everything you say would make sense. But ignorance is not the ultimate or first cause of the mind, and in fact, ignorance is not inherent to the mind, as your query suggests.In fact, it is affliction in general that drives samsara, but afflictions do not drive the mind.

Astus wrote:
What Mahayana teaching is it that goes beyond the twelve links of dependent origination? The twelve is what establishes ignorance as the root cause, and it is also what is given as the force driving both the mind and the whole of the world.

Malcolm said:
Third, just because one no longer takes rebirth in the three realms does not mean that one's mind has ceased to exist. The mind does not exist in the three realms; the three realms exist in the mind.

Astus wrote:
What is it that drives the mind if not ignorance and the subsequent afflictions?

(If possible please give something else as well, besides Dzogchen sources.)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Does what you mean by suchness include the "subject side," the (appearance of) mere knowing?

Astus wrote:
As I see it, everything in Buddhism is about the subjective point of view (skandhas, dhatus). So, as suchness is about the illusory appearances, it fits what is also called mere knowing or mind only.

"The recognition of the one vehicle is obtained when there is no rising of discrimination by doing away with the notion of grasped and grasping and by abiding in the reality of suchness (yathabhuta)."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 2.56, tr Suzuki)

"When the external world is not grasped [as real] there is neither causation nor reality; there is the essence of suchness (thatata), which is the [spiritual] realm of the wise."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.62, tr Suzuki)

"Suchness (tathata), emptiness, realm of truth (dharmadhatu), the various forms of the will-body— these I call Mind-only."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.64, tr Suzuki)

"When erroneous views based on the dualistic notion of assertion and negation are gotten rid of, and when the Vijnanas cease to rise as regards the objective world of names and appearances, this I call "suchness.""
(Lankavatara Sutra, 6.83, tr Suzuki)

"Whenever, regarding the objective realm,
Knowledge is completely devoid of something obtained,
Then it dwells in consciousness only,
Because it is divorced from characteristics of the twofold grasping."
(Trimsika, v 28, tr Cook, BDK ed. p 383)

"For it has been said by the Tathagata that “the five skandhas are reckoned as the ‘world.’” Therefore then, Subhuti, that which is the Suchness of the skandhas, that is the Suchness of the world; that which is the Suchness of the world, that is the Suchness of all dharmas; that which is the Suchness of all dharmas that is the Suchness of the fruit of a Streamwinner, and so on, up to: that is the Suchness of Pratyekabuddhahood, that is the Suchness of the Tathagata. In consequence all this Suchness, -the Suchness of the Tathagata, of the skandhas, of all dharmas, of all holy Disciples and Pratyekabuddhas- is just one single Suchness, is without any trace of the variety of positivity and negativity, as being one, non-different, inextinguishable, unaffected, non-dual, without cause for duality."
(PP8000, XII.3, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
what I meant by "mere knowing"

Astus wrote:
I see, so it was the lack of grasper and grasped, in other words: vijnaptimatra.

treehuggingoctopus said:
You did not answer my question, though.

Astus wrote:
Which one?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 7:28 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Would your reasoning be valid with respect to that nonconceptual merely apparent "something" the word "suchness" points to?

Astus wrote:
What is there to say about silence? It means there is nothing said. Similarly, non-conceptual means nothing conceived. What is there to elaborate, to conceptualise, about the lack of concepts? Then to come up with the view that somehow we can nevertheless perceive something makes it more complicated than necessary. Rather, what makes one's view non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) is not being mindless but not having the wrong view of self/substance, because that is what results in grasping and suffering, not thoughts in general. And that's what it means to see the conditioned as conditioned.

treehuggingoctopus said:
More importantly, does your suchness include the subject side, i.e., the mere knowing of appearances?

Astus wrote:
Mere knowing is an imaginary idea based on the mistaken view that for some reason concepts are bad. And that concept of "mere view" only leads to the wrong sort of meditation where people try to remain thoughtless.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 6:11 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
If I am reading you correctly, you are equating suchness with emptiness, right?

Astus wrote:
Emptiness emphasises that there is no substance. Suchness emphasises the illusory appearance.

treehuggingoctopus said:
The logic of the head-spinning second sentence seems to me somewhat dubious.

Astus wrote:
What is the doubt about?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Would you say that your position is representative of what Chan Buddhism has to say on the matter?

Astus wrote:
No. There is hardly anything that all of Chan followers would universally agree on anyway. What I said regarding the impossibility of an unconditioned mind is more in line with what you find in the Nikayas and Madhyamaka. But to give a Zen example, Dogen was quite serious in attacking the idea that buddha-nature means an independent mind.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Do you consider suchness to be conditioned?

Astus wrote:
As the Samdhinirmocana Sutra explains in its second chapter (BDK ed. p 11): "Good son, in sum, all things are of two kinds, conditioned and unconditioned. Herein conditioned things are neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and unconditioned things are neither unconditioned nor conditioned."

In other words, suchness is a word, a concept, and as such it is conditioned. At the same time, seeing it to be conditioned means it is without any meaning on its own, and that meaninglessness is the unconditioned. Hence suchness is conditioned because it is unconditioned because it is conditioned, and that's how it is simply such.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, dependent origination is a mind-driven process. Isn't that plainly obvious?

Astus wrote:
Of course. What is it that drives the mind? The Hinayana position is that it is ignorance, and with the ignorance removed there is no reason for another birth. Mahayana follows that view, that's why it needs to exchange ignorance with aspirations, since that type of understanding comes from the Hinayana version of the bodhisattva path, in other words, all the Mahayana explanations are built to back up an already accepted model. And the problem I see here is that it lacks the explanation for why arhats could not simply end the process, thus questioning the assumption that the mind-stream is unceasing.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Not quite. CW is of the opinion that all consciousness (vijnana) is afflicted, unestablished and conditioned -- but there is also unafflicted cognition (aka as wisdom, jnana) which is unestablished and unconditioned. Controversial?

Astus wrote:
Any form of consciousness/awareness/cognition is conditioned, because it is dependent on the object that is perceived. A consciousness without anything to be conscious of is unconsciousness. Affliction is the attachment to appearances, believing them to be independent, unconditioned, and thus regarding them as self or the possession of a self. Recognising the empty nature of phenomena means abandoning the false concept of substantiality, of self, and it is brought about by contemplation performed with a conditioned mind. If an unconditioned consciousness were necessary to realise emptiness, then such a realisation could never happen, or it had already been realised, because what is unconditioned does not change.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
there are no buddhas who made no aspirations

Astus wrote:
Ignorance cannot be what sustains rebirth, because then arhats would be finished, as they are without aspirations. It also cannot be established that arhats grasp at non-existence and that's why they succumb temporarily to an inactive state, since they are without any form of identification with anything. Furthermore, if aspirations are necessary for the buddhas to remain functional, that in itself means that dependent origination is driven by mental effort.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
the cause of the continuity of buddhas is the force of previously made aspirations. This is not controversial. Buddhas are beyond birth and death, as are bodhisattvas on the pure stages.

Astus wrote:
How can they be beyond rebirth when there is no end of birth? Non-abiding nirvana means being present in samsara without being affected by it. That is practically no different from nirvana with remnants, where the arhat has only functional minds (kiriyacitta) that are beyond karma. The only difference lies in the compassion part. If bodhisattvas and buddhas are sustained by their aspirations, since an arhat is without such vows, there should be no reason for the continuity of birth. Saying that they still have to be reborn because of cognitive obscurations leads us http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=355583#p355583 in this topic. Not to mention the non-afflictive nature of cognitive obscurations that make them irrelevant regarding rebirth. In other words, what if there were no vows made, and why wouldn't that mean the end of the mind-stream?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Then you and CW are just talking past each other, are you not?

Astus wrote:
I do not see how. Consciousness, any kind, is necessarily conditioned. Nirvana is not a consciousness, but the final extinction of defilements. CW is of the opinion that somehow there can be an unconditioned consciousness. That I call illogical and impossible, because consciousness is always the awareness of something, and that means change, but change cannot happen to what is unconditioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 5:23 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
their continuums are sustained on infinite causes.

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is taught to be the root cause of birth. Saying that birth can never end means that ignorance cannot be the root cause. What is it then that sustains it?

Malcolm said:
Praṇidhāna-pāramitā.

Astus wrote:
For bodhisattvas and buddhas compassion is said to be the driving force so that they don't abandon beings. Such a condition is needed if birth can end. But since birth cannot end, there is no need for such an aspiration, and there is always either a deluded or an enlightened inclination that sustains birth, in which case both types of beings are subjects to birth and death. Thus nirvana is samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 5:03 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
tomamundsen said:
which phenomena are not included in the skhandas?

Astus wrote:
The unconditioned dharmas are categorised under the dhatus but not the skandhas in the Kosha.

"All conditioned dharmas are included within the totality of the skandhas (i.7); all of the impure dharmas are included within the totality of the upadanaskandhas (i.8); and all the dharmas are included within the totality of the ayatanas and the dhatus (i.14)."
(Kosha, I.18; vol 1, p 76)

"Unconditioned things are not named with respect to the skandhas, because they do not correspond to the concept."
(Kosha, I.22a-b; vol 1, p 81)

Same in Theravada where nibbana is a mental object, hence include in the 12 ayatanas and 18 dhatus, but it is different from the 8 supramundane minds - they take nibbana as the object - that are within the 5 aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is not that they must, it is simply that they do.

Astus wrote:
That still makes it an eternalist interpretation. Beings are literally immortal.

Malcolm said:
Aspirations.

Astus wrote:
That is? Ordinary beings have selfish aspirations, while noble beings have selfless aspirations? That sounds like saying that the third noble truth is false and there is only craving.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, since Sautrantikas assert that Nirvana is a nonexistence, it is definite that the highest Hinayāna view maintains that nirvana is a nonexistence. Other Hinayāna schools maintain that nirvana is some unconditioned phenomena, belonging to cessation due to insight.

Astus wrote:
I assume you're referring to this:

"What is called pratisanhkhyanirodha or Nirvana is—when both the defilements already produced and the existence already produced are destroyed —the absence of any other defilements or any other existence, and that by reason of the force of the consciousness (pratisamkhya-prajna)."
(Kosha II.55d; v 1, p 280-281)

It is not simply non-existence, but the end of defilements and the existence (suffering) that comes from those. This is nothing more than the statement repeated so often with the twelve links of dependent origination, how because of the "remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes ... the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html )

But would you say that the Sautrantikas or others claimed a definitive negative answer to the question whether the Tathagata exists after death? At the same time, are you of the opinion that the Mahayana answer is a definitive yes?

Malcolm said:
If the purified continuums of buddhas and bodhisattvas do not continue forever, it follows that they must somehow cease.

Astus wrote:
That is simply exchanging "self" for "continuum", and positing the extremes of existence and non-existence.

Malcolm said:
If they must somehow cease, this is an annihilationist position.

Astus wrote:
And if they must persist, it is the eternalist position.

Malcolm said:
If you are argue it is merely a self within that continuum that does not cease because it does not exist, this still leaves us with the purified continuum of buddhas and bodhisattvas persisting forever since there is no condition by which such a continuum should cease given that there is no condition by which the continuums of sentient beings, the object of their compassion, will cease.

Astus wrote:
What is the maintaining force of that continuum? It cannot be ignorance, or defilements, nor can it be wisdom, or compassion. Then what?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2016 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
The latter leads to the former.

Astus wrote:
Not necessarily, because one can attain not only arhatship but also the state of the non-returner.

Malcolm said:
The Mahāyāna point is that arhats, when they pass away, enter that equipoise and remain there, since we do not accept that there can be an absolute cessation of the mind.

Astus wrote:
There is no arising, hence no cessation either. It is because all appearances are unborn that they are no different from nirvana. That's why the emptiness of phenomena is emphasised as the unique wisdom of bodhisattvas. However, it is a misinterpretation even in Hinayana to say that an arhat ceases to exist, for the same reason it is a mistake in Mahayana: there is nothing to cease. At the same time, there is nothing to persist either. So, saying that the mind-stream continues on forever is at best a provisional teaching for those afraid of becoming nothing.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Astus, out of curiosity: what do you mean by "consciousness"? Are you using it in the specific context of the skandhas, dhatus and ayatanas, or in the broadest possible sense, to designate all and any possible types of cognition?

Astus wrote:
As Malcolm said, the fifth aggregate.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Abhidharmasammuvaya, pg. 135

Astus wrote:
That talks about nirodha, the third noble truth. I meant there nirodhasamapatti, the 9th dhyana. They are not the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
There is a something not conditioned, if there weren't the path would be impossible.

Astus wrote:
I didn't say there is nothing unconditioned. I said that consciousness cannot be unconditioned. It is nirvana that is unconditioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Perhaps off topic, but where is the difference between nirvana and annihilation at death if the extent of Dharma ends at the five skandhas?

Astus wrote:
The aggregates cease to occur after parinirvana, that is the Hinayana view. However, it is not annihilation, because there is no self that is destroyed. This is clarified in teachings like the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html, the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html, and the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html.

Monlam Tharchin said:
Does not contact cease with dissolution of the body, therefore the types of consciousnesses no longer have a basis? I have a hard time sussing out the difference between nirvana and ordinary death in the case of a consciousness predicated on bodily senses.

Astus wrote:
There are six consciousnesses, so there is also a mind-consciousness that occurs based on mental objects. That's why there is rebirth. But when there is no more craving, no more attachment, no more self view, then there is no cause for rebirth.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Now you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth and conceding my point. And you're wrong it is unconditioned and unestablished consciousness. Besides. This is a distinction without a difference, unless one is imputing a difference for pedagogy. But in this case doing so obscures the point that these are the same thing.

Astus wrote:
Unconditioned means that it is without cause, it is permanent. Such a consciousness is impossible. Unestablished is simply another word for lack of attachment, lack of the mistaken concept of a self. In other words, unestablished consciousness (no self) means the exact opposite of unconditioned consciousness (self).


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
So there's no denying this refers to Nibbana vinnanam annidassanam, anantam sabbatopham.

Astus wrote:
It refers to consciousness without attachment. That is what being liberated means. Nirvana is the end of all attachments. But it doesn't mean there is an unconditioned consciousness. It is simply an unestablished (appatiṭṭha) consciousness.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.than.html )

"Where there is no passion for the nutriment of consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html )

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.054.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html )

"Whatever you're alert to,
	above, below,
	across, in between:
dispelling any delight,
		any laying claim
		to those things,
consciousness should not take a stance
		in becoming.
The monk who dwells thus
	— mindful, heedful —
letting go of his sense of mine,
knowing right here would abandon
		birth & aging,
	lamentation & sorrow,
		stress & suffering."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.04.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
No. I'm saying Nibbana is a discernment and it happens in the cessation, because Nibbana is a consciousness without surface or feature and also because it does not come or go, and because it is luminous whether there are defilements or not

Astus wrote:
In other words, you're positing an unconditioned consciousness. That is a clear case of belief in a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Nibbana is it.
http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/244-Meaning-of-Vi%C3%B1%C3%B1%C4%81%E1%B9%87a%E1%B9%83-anidassana%E1%B9%83

Astus wrote:
As Ajahn Brahmali points out there:

"Remember that there is no mind apart from the five khandhas, the aggregates. The mind is nothing apart from the the mental aggregates working together. When consciousness ceases, the mind also ceases. Nibbāna is simply the cessation of suffering, since all these things are suffering."

See also Sujato's (friend of Brahmali) posts:

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/nibbana-remains-not-vinnana/
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/nibbana-is-still-not-vinna%E1%B9%87a/


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I addressed your points, but you won't address mine, eg, re cessation and clear faculties

Astus wrote:
I did respond to that, saying that faculties are the basic sensory ability, namely eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, mind. However, nothing occurs as physical object, since one is well beyond the rupadhyanas. Nor is there anything to appear for the mind, as both feelings and thoughts have ceased. That's why one of the quoted suttas explicitly say that the bodily, the verbal, and the mental functions have stopped.


Crazywisdom said:
and nirvana as pure consciousness.

Astus wrote:
There are six consciousnesses. They are neither pure nor impure. Positing a seventh consciousness as nirvana is not based on any Buddhist teaching that I'm aware of. Please quote your sources.

Crazywisdom said:
Your use of the indriya and sense bases is non responsive.

Astus wrote:
How so? I have clearly stated what faculties mean. But see what the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism says:

"In the sutra literature, indriya typically refers to the five or six sense bases: e.g., the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile faculties associated with the physical sense organs and the mental base associated with the mind; in the case of the physical senses, the indriya are forms of subtle matter located within the organs of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body that enable the functioning of the senses. The mind (manas) is typically listed as a sixth, internal sensory faculty."

Crazywisdom said:
It's also contradicted by the passages previously cited.

Astus wrote:
What exactly contradicts what?

Crazywisdom said:
By the way you cited the passages about having clear faculties in cessation.

Astus wrote:
Yes. That's a difference between one who is in absorption and one who is dead, that the one in absorption has functioning senses. It doesn't mean, as you seem to interpret, that there are objects occurring to those faculties.

Crazywisdom said:
Nibbana is a consciousness

Astus wrote:
Which one of the six is it?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 17th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Five wisdoms, Buddha-nature, hello?

Astus wrote:
Those are Yogacara and Vajrayana ideas, not Hinayana.

Crazywisdom said:
Faculties are exceptionally clear, hello?

Astus wrote:
"mental fabrications have ceased & subsided" - hence no discernment. Faculties (indriya) means only the senses, in other words, one who is in nirodhasamapatti has not lost the ability to sense, but there is nothing that occurs to be sensed.


Crazywisdom said:
Nirodha is identified. He knows, it is stopped, etc.

Astus wrote:
Since there is no perception, there is no possibility of conceiving that "it is stopped".

"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to attain the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am attaining the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have attained the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."
...
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html )

Crazywisdom said:
So Nibbana can discern peace, happiness, freedom, etc. many qualities are discerned that do not fall within the above lists. Nibbana is also called a consciousness, pure, clear, luminous all around. So the capacity to know and understand is always available.

Astus wrote:
What do you base those assumptions on? Nirvana is the final cessation of defilements. It is not a consciousness, especially because all six consciousnesses are conditioned. Discernment is a mental function that occurs within the four mental aggregates and it is necessarily the object of the sixth consciousness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 17th, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
But I contend, the wisdom aspect of mind is never stopped.

Astus wrote:
What is that wisdom aspect? If you assume there is something beyond the five aggregates, that contradicts both Hinayana and Mahayana teachings.

Crazywisdom said:
Cessation of perception and feeling is not the same as a coma.

Astus wrote:
"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"
"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html )

Crazywisdom said:
The discerning mind is not included in either of perception or feeling.

Astus wrote:
Perception means the function of identifying things. How do you discern without the ability to identify anything?

Crazywisdom said:
The self-knowing awareness

Astus wrote:
There are only six types of consciousness, they all are dependent on objects, and all of them come under the consciousness aggregate.

"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html )

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 17th, 2016 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I did. Twice. Plus, Buddha is saying there is possibility of discernment in cessation.

Astus wrote:
Both quotes describe a sequential order, that following absorption in cessation there is a reflection on that state. If, as you claim, cessation were equal to nirvana, there would be no need to be followed up by reflection. Furthermore, when there is no perception, how can discernment be performed?

Crazywisdom said:
Discernment is what is causing Nibbana in any case.

Astus wrote:
Since cessation is not discernment, and cessation precedes discernment, cessation cannot be the same as nirvana.

Crazywisdom said:
Or Nibbana is a kind of discernment, with a wide variety of ways to get to it.

Astus wrote:
Nirvana means the complete cessation of defilements. That is neither an absorption, nor a discernment.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 17th, 2016 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Equating it with nibbana.

Astus wrote:
If it were the same as nirvana, there would be no need to see it with discernment/wisdom. Furthermore, it could not be that one doesn't attain arhatship.

Crazywisdom said:
This is not an either or situation.. Buddha was open to different outcomes. But cessation is a path to nibbana.

Astus wrote:
Following nirodhasamapatti one gains either the state of an arhat, or the state of a non-returner. There is no third option.

"How does the emergence from it come about? The emergence comes about in two ways thus: by means of the fruition of non-return in the case of the nonreturner, or by means of the fruition of Arahantship in the case of the Arahant."
(Vism. XXIII.49, p 741)

Crazywisdom said:
So here entirely different terms are used, but it should be clear "Even this much..."  means Nibbana

Astus wrote:
As before, it requires seeing with discernment, and discernment cannot occur while there is no perception.

Crazywisdom said:
You make the mistake of thinking there are logically distinct categories.

Astus wrote:
Why is that a mistake?

Crazywisdom said:
In the Nibbana Sutta it's clearly stated that cessation is Nibbana.

Astus wrote:
It's not stated anywhere. Please provide a quote that explicitly says that.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 17th, 2016 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
It's the seeing w discernment that avoids becoming a mindless being and and connects with signlessness, emptiness, etc... Discerning the three doors and 12 links in every stage.

Astus wrote:
It says nowhere that nirodhasamapatti is nirvana. What it says is that following nirodhasamapatti there is only nirvana that is more pleasant.

Not only arhats can attain nirodhasamapatti, but also non-returners. Therefore, it doesn't equal nirvana.

“Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu accomplished in virtuous behavior, concentration, and wisdom might enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. If he does not reach final knowledge in this very life, then, having been reborn among a certain group of mind-made [deities] that transcend the company of devas that subsist on edible food, he might [again] enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. There is this possibility.”
(AN 6.166 / III.194, tr B. Bodhi)

Nirvana can be attained without accomplishing the formless absorptions, therefore one may never experience nirodhasamapatti but still be an arhat (SN 12.70). In one sutta (SN 8.7) it is even said that 64% of arhats are like that, that is, liberated by wisdom.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Cessation of perception is what nirvana is.

Astus wrote:
Then asamjnisattvas are arhats. And how do you rectify that with the meaning of sopadisesanirvana?

Crazywisdom said:
The arya enters and exits this meditation and sees the 12 links in forward and reverse order thereby seeing how there is nothing to be perceived (no self) in any link. So it's all one vision in essence.

Astus wrote:
Seeing no-self is one thing, abiding in the cessation of perception is another, and nirvana is a third.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Well, techincally, nirodhasamapatti and nirvikalpa samadhi are the same, differentiated by whether one is a commoner or a buddha, and the latter is the vajropamasamadhi of a buddha.

Astus wrote:
Nirodhasamapatti means the suspension of perception and feeling. Nirvikalpa means the absence of false discrimination as a lack of substantialist conceptualisation, but both perceptions and feelings are functional. One is a high level absorption, the other is a high level wisdom.

"Non-discrimination in the absence of idle speculation should not be understood as nonthought (amanasikara), or as going beyond thought (manasikarasamatikrama) or as appeasement (vyupasama), or as [*own-*]nature (svabhava), or as a mental construction concerning an object (alambane abhisamskara), but as a mental non-construction concerning an object (alambane anabbisamskara)."
(Samuccaya p 240)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
The only difference between the two, as I already said, is whether it belongs to an ārya or not. In the case of an ārya, it leads to the elimination of afflictions, in the case of a commoner, it does not.

Astus wrote:
Both are available only to aryas. However, neither of them are nirvana. And the point is that nirodhasamapatti is not the destination of arhats.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2016 at 7:09 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Rakz said:
Just curious, where is it stated in the sutras that samsara never ends and the number or beings are infinite?

Astus wrote:
Check the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow#East_Asia themselves.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2016 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sure it is, the only difference between vajropama-samadhi and nirodhasamapatti is whether one is an ārya or not.

Astus wrote:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm is the 9th dhyana, not nirvana, and it is also called the cessation of perception and feeling. It is not the same as the http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/asannasatta.htm, because of the difference in the cravings eliminated (Samuccaya p 19). They both differ from http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nibbaana.htm, because that means the complete extinction of defilements, but the faculties remain functional until death, while with death there is no more becoming of any bodily or mental existence (Samuccaya p 137). As for vajropamasamadhi, that is the attainment eliminating all defilements that leads to nirvana (Kosha, vol 3, p 981-3, 1020-1021; Samuccaya p 174), so it is different from nirodhasamapatti that does not necessarily lead to the elimination of all defilements.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 15th, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Rakz said:
But if it did end then Buddhas would too enter into the samadhi of cessation like they already do temporarily after the universe gets destroyed.

Astus wrote:
Nirvana is not nirodhasamapatti (samadhi of cessation). Otherwise yes, that is one of the interpretations, and that's why bodhisattvas are said to delay the attainment of nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 15th, 2016 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
That's why I said no bodhisattvas. If there are no sentient beings, what are the bodhisattvas holding back for?

Astus wrote:
Samsara never ends, there are infinite sentient beings, and buddha-nature is permanent. In other words, while Hinayana can be misunderstood as annihilationist, Mahayana can equally be called eternalist. Of course, both can also deny such extremes, and explain how emptiness is neither.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Just because there is no view regarding the person, does not mean that there does not still remain views regarding dharmas. Also, as pointed out, Arhats do not realize emptiness free from all four extremes of proliferation. Why? They realize only the emptiness of the person.

Astus wrote:
You seem to say that arhats merely learn this idea that there is no self but fail to learn that there is no substance of any kind, as if no-self were merely a conceptual view for them. What I say is that realising no-self in case of an arhat means not grasping the aggregates. If no aggregates are grasped, then no concepts are grasped. If no concepts are grasped, there are no views attached to either.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
You are referring to upādāna-skandhas? Anupādāna, non-addictive, simple means that these aggregates are not a cause for future rebirth. There is no implication that they are not regarded as being existent and so on. All that is being implied is that śrāvakas recognize that there is no person (pudgala) in the aggregates and therefore the aggregates are are longer addictive (upādāna).

Astus wrote:
Upādāna is the support, the fuel, and without it there is nothing to rely on, no burning. Since the aggregates are still there without clinging, at least until complete extinction, it can be said that they exist. On the other hand, because there is no identification nor appropriation (me, mine), there is no reliance on physical or mental appearances, hence no view clung to (diṭṭhupādāna), no attachment to the extreme of existence or non-existence. What is the basis then for any cognitive obscuration?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 5:47 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Not so. When we say that "Arhats realize the selfless of the aggregates," in fact they do not realize the selflessness of the aggregates themselves, rather, only the selflessness of the person imputed on the aggregates.

Astus wrote:
That is the usual definition of their attainment, that they take the aggregates real but not any self. Or in other words, they differentiate aggregates with attachment and aggregates without attachment, where the latter is considered the final attainment. Now, if they are not attached to the aggregates, then they cannot be attached to any view, because views are concepts, and concepts are within the aggregates.

If the emptiness of person for arhats means not grasping a self but grasping the aggregates, that is a contradiction, because grasping the aggregates is itself grasping at a self. Eliminating grasping at aggregates is the method taught even in Mahayana as the way to relinquish the attachment to a real self.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, it does not come from a lack of clinging.

Astus wrote:
Mipham seems to disagree:

One may wonder: "Although this does eliminate the cognitive obscuration that obscures the nature as it is, how can it eliminate the cognitive obscuration that obscures all that exists?" All that exists and the nature as it is are no different in the real condition and, when the distorted frame of mind that blindly apprehends contrary to the nature of things is eliminated, the wisdom that correctly realizes this real condition will effortlessly perceive all possible existing things.
(Gateway to Knowledge, vol 3, p 222)

And that agrees with the view that once the two obscurations are gone all knowledge is attained.

Malcolm said:
Arhats realize selfness of the aggregates only, they do not realize the selflessness of all phenomena because the aggregates do not include all phenomena, but only afflicted conditioned phenomena.

Astus wrote:
An arhat has also realised the lack of self in all six areas of perception. Since all appearances that occur are one of the five aggregates and six areas, there cannot be anything an arhat grasps as self or belonging to a self. Furthermore, belief in any kind of substance can occur only in the aggregates, and since no aggregate is grasped, no view can be grasped either.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
anjali said:
Here is how it is explained by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in As It Is, V2:

Astus wrote:
That is the same definition as in the Uttaratantra Shastra, and it can go back further to Yogacara's grasper/subject and grasped/object. An arhat that does not grasp at the aggregates cannot have those subtle concepts either. Primarily, because there is no attachment to concepts. Secondarly, because an arhat has realised the lack of self, and without an owner/grasper there can be no owned/grasped either.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
maybay said:
Knowledge comes from developing your faculties.

Astus wrote:
What faculties? Like sight and taste?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Astus wrote:
...knowledge of all modes does not come from lack of clinging.

Malcolm said:
Yes.

Astus wrote:
Yes it does come from lack of clinging? Or yes, there is a different cause? If the latter, what is it?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Absence of attachment does indicate absence of cognitive obscuration.

Astus wrote:
What do you call cognitive obscuration then?

Malcolm said:
For example, one may have no attachment to chocolate, and nevertheless be ignorant of the flavor of coffee.

Astus wrote:
That is not obscuration, that is lack of information. By the way, Shakyamuni tasted neither.

Malcolm said:
Likewise, arhats may be free of gross attachment to the three realms, but they are ignorance of all modes of awakening, among other things.

Astus wrote:
Arhats are free from attachment to the five aggregates. There is nothing more to be attached to. So, either they have knowledge of all modes, or knowledge of all modes does not come from lack of clinging.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, they cannot be. There is no practice of thögal in any gsar ma system.

Astus wrote:
I didn't say there is thogal. I said that the listed features can be true for Mahamudra as well. Let me quote it then:

First, practitioners on this path are not distinguished by the sharpness or dullness of their faculties, but rather by the intensity of their endeavor, greater or lesser as this may be.
Second, practitioners do not rely on mental analysis because they can see ultimate reality directly. 
Third, because they have a direct realization of awareness as it truly is, they do not rely on mere words. 
Fourth, since the natural luminosity (of primordial wisdom) is actually present, the ground, path, and result are not chronologically related to each other. 
Fifth, since it does not depend on karmic sequences, good or bad, this path is free from the strenuous and discriminative practices of adopting and rejecting.
Sixth, since the self-arisen luminosity manifests from within, there is no difference between young and old practitioners. 
Seventh, practitioners enjoy a perfect experience of the three kayas even while they are still on the path. They capture the everlasting kingdom of spontaneously present awareness in the expanse of primordial purity.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Kagyu Mahāmudra, Trekchö, the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, etc., all have the same point: resting in a moment of unfabricated consciousness. Dzogchen goes beyond this point, that's all.

Astus wrote:
In what way does it go beyond? For instance, the seven distinguishing features of thogal (Treasury of Precious Qualities, vol 2, p 269) can be valid for Mahamudra as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
This does not follow at all.

Astus wrote:
How so? If one grasps at concepts, that is identifying with at least some mental aggregates. If no mental phenomena is attached to, where can be any cognitive obscuration?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
maybay said:
I beg your pardon, there were most certainly pratyekabuddhas.

Astus wrote:
Pratyekabuddhas exist when there is no Buddhadharma in the world. That is, no Buddhist has ever met one in the last 2500 years.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
Malcolm said:
Of course there is a difference; arhats possess non-afflictive ignorance. Buddha's don't. But if arhats want to realize Mahāyāna buddhahood, they must begin at the beginning, since they lack both accumulations.

Astus wrote:
Arhats cannot have cognitive obscuration, because that would mean attachment to mental aggregates. Saying that they are stuck in the samadhi of cessation of course means that they have been reduced to the level of asamjnisattvas. Then it is quite easy to refute them - or rather the arhats one has made up - as mistaken.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 11th, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
tiagolps said:
That's what makes this question so complicated haven't been able to find a concrete answer, the most confusing explanation is when arahants are called selfish by mahayanists, how can they be free from samsara if they are selfish?

Astus wrote:
In Mahayana arhats are mostly fictional dummies playing the role of dumb practitioners. Plus neither in China nor in Tibet were any strong Hinayana school, so there is nobody behind the term arhat, just as there have been no pratyekabuddhas even in India. Unless one wants to repeat arguments that have lost their meanings more than a thousand years ago, one has to engage in some sort of discussion with the current Theravadins.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
daelm said:
patriarchal oppression definitely happens to people.

Astus wrote:
Who are the oppressors?

daelm said:
when a systemic institutional

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is in the whole system, it is not that a few individuals make others obey, but everyone serves a role by believing in the system itself.

daelm said:
if there are institutional misogynies in a system,they will still have effects unless they are addressed.

Astus wrote:
I agree with that. But it's not just a few oppressors one has to inform of being oppressors, but everyone in the whole system must recognise the entire construction. The oppressed has to recognise their own situation and address their own preconceptions that help the system to stay.

daelm said:
if the tenets being taught still embed such biases, the biases will still have the expected outcomes

Astus wrote:
It extends beyond mere tenets. It goes back to the common belief that physical attributes define mental function. Consequently, even talking about male and female deities as if they symbolised certain qualities is sexist.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: According to Mahayana, is everything our karma?
Content:
muni said:
I think we cannot just say conventional bodhichitta is ignorance.

Astus wrote:
That's not it. The point is that good deeds merely result in good effects, nothing more. In case one aspires for enlightenment, such good circumstances are used to study the Dharma. But in order to engage in the practice of the paramitas, the most important is to establish oneself in prajnaparamita, because that is what makes the other five into paramitas and not simply good deeds.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
tiagolps said:
So from the mahayana viewpoint, arahants aren't really free from samsara?

Astus wrote:
They are. That is what makes them arhats. But besides that, there are all sorts of interpretations and opinions about them. For instance, arhats have their own cult in East Asia in the form of 16/18 http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/rakan-arhat-lohan.shtml.

There is no generally applicable definition either, as views are contradictory and diverse, starting with the difference between saying that arhats end their career at parinirvana and those who say they don't, although I've also found an explanation that simply says that some arhats are finished while some continue on the bodhisattva path.

Interestingly, if we compare the early teachings where one has to be free from identification with the aggregates, and teachings on the obscurations in Mahayana that block one from attaining buddhahood, it turns out that there should be no difference at all between arhats and buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 4:10 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
What in fact that Dzogchen tradition rejects is that the two stages are needed at all. They can be used if desired, but they are not necessary.

Astus wrote:
Mahamudra works without them as well.

"Still others just meditate on mandala circles,
Some are fixed in explaining the purport of the fourth,
For some [reality] is conceptually visualized as space,
Still others would have [reality] possess emptiness.
In general they are fixed in contradiction."
(Ornamental Flower for the Dohas, v 45–49, Dreaming the Great Brahmin, p 136)

"No tantra, no mantra, nothing to meditate on,
no meditative concentration.
These all are causes which delude your ego.
Do not corrupt your mind, whose nature is pure,
with meditative concentrations.
Station the true self in bliss, and cause it no torment. 
Basking in eating, drink, and sex
Fills the nodes again and again,
Through such a teaching, the ends of the earth are reached”;
Stamp down such deluded defenders of the world
and move on.
Those in whom the breath and mind do not move,
And the sun and moon are uninvolved,
Ignorant ones, you must rest your breath.
Saraha has taught all instructions and gone away."
(v 95–106, p 141-142)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 3:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus does.

Astus wrote:
What is an inert emptiness? What other emptinesses do you know?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Difference in attainments
Content:
tiagolps said:
What is the difference between arahantship and buddhahood?

Astus wrote:
Arhats attained liberation from samsara. Buddhas attained everything that can be attained.

tiagolps said:
I know that buddhas attain omniscience, and thus are able to help beings in ways the arahants can not, but what else?

Astus wrote:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Buddha#Kayas_.26_Wisdoms, http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eight_qualities_of_a_buddha, http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eighteen_unshared_qualities_of_a_buddha. See also: https://books.google.hu/books?id=DTWZLMGFFgkC.

tiagolps said:
And what is the connection between arahantship and buddhahood?

Astus wrote:
Both mean freedom from rebirth.

tiagolps said:
How do arahants progress to the mahayana path after attaining Nirvana?

Astus wrote:
They start on the 6th/7th bhumi.

It should also be remembered that arhats in Mahayana mainly represent those practitioners who think that annihilation is the solution, and they mistake meditative peace for enlightenment. That's why they need to be waken up from their false nirvana to continue the path.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, but that depends on the power of your siddhi. So I would not give up that day job just yet, Astus.

Astus wrote:
So it's the fault of the user if it doesn't work. How convenient.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You will note I excluded IT problems. I also do not know of any mantras that can fix other inert things such as pots, wheels and so on, because they are inert.

Astus wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe we have to wait a few more years for computers to become sentient.

Malcolm said:
Practices for healing, prosperity, increasing harvests and so on are abundant and useful since they relate to things that are alive, and not inert.

Astus wrote:
Is it possible to exchange one's 8 hours job for a 30 mins prosperity ritual but maintain the same income level? Might need a new topic for that perhaps.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
IOS and OS X are not the same thing.

Astus wrote:
That's OK. I'm simply asking about those other special methods that work in all walks of life, like fixing IT problems. Practising patience is of course beneficial, but the machine cares not about your state of mind.

Malcolm said:
That's up to the individual person to decide for themselves.

Astus wrote:
Fair enough, I guess. If I remember correctly, Gampopa was happy to teach Mahamudra to everyone as the swift and efficient path, but reserved deity yoga and tummo to his circle of close disciples.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But they are, and are one of the reasons we have many methods of dealing with health, financial and other kinds of obstacles in the Vajrayāna tradition that Dzogchen practitioners can use as they see fit. If you get a Mac, you won't have computer problems, apart from hardware failures.

Astus wrote:
Really? Do you know a mantra perhaps for the problems caused by the current IOS upgrade on Apple devices? Could help a lot of people.

Malcolm said:
Well, when we talk about the path of Dzogchen, it goes beyond this inert kind of emptiness of which you are so fond.

Astus wrote:
That still doesn't answer the question. If it is a method that is sufficient for liberation, why use anything else? If one knows self-liberation, how could that not be enough?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
but maybe what this is really talking about is the mind.  It takes a certain amount of intelligence to figure out what exactly Buddha-Nature is......maybe you have to be a genius

Astus wrote:
I doubt that. Intelligence/rationality is associated with masculinity by modern Westerners, not ancient Asians. The reason I quoted those drawbacks of female birth was to show what can be considered connected with femininity. Rationality has not been seen as a difference between the sexes.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
let us say you are a Dzogchen practitioner, but you have a problem with alcohol. ... Let is say that you have a clear sign your lifeforce is dwindling, then you might want to resort to various methods of cheating death and prolonging life.

Astus wrote:
Those issues are not related to the bodhisattva path. I wouldn't consider health, financial, or computer problems appropriately solvable with Buddhist methods, nor should they be seen as such.

Malcolm said:
the actual path of Dzogchen is never based on concepts and mind

Astus wrote:
That's great. No ideation, no self, no suffering. And that's why I raised the question about the need for doing anything else.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Because people have relative circumstances.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by that? Is Dzogchen not sufficient, or is it functional only for some people?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
can practice whatever they like or need from the eight lower yānas.

Astus wrote:
Why would they do that if it's complete as it is?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
maybe having a rational mind that can think logically is what they mean by having a penis?

Astus wrote:
The female body has several drawbacks in Buddhism. First of all, there are the "five obstacles, three subordinations" (
五障三從), that is, no woman can become brahma, indra, mara, cakravartin, or buddha; and they are subject to their father as a child, their husband as an adult, and their son as an old person. Furthermore, particularly in East Asian Buddhism, they are impure from menstruation (see: http://www.onmarkproductions.com/menstration-sutra-michael-kelsey.pdf and http://www.reed.edu/hellscrolls/scrolls/Aseries/A06/A06e.html ), and suffer from giving birth (see: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/filial-sutra.htm ). It is also a regular theme that women are overly passionate.

Here is a famous section from the Nirvana Sutra (tr Yamamoto, ch 16):

"All good men and women desire to be born as a man. Why so? Because females are the nests of evil. Also, it is as in the case of the water of mosquitoes and sawflies, which cannot moisten this great earth. In addition, the sensual appetite of females cannot ever be satisfied."

But eventually the scripture states:

"Any person who does not realise that he has the Buddha-Nature is a woman. If he does so realise, he is a man. If any woman knows that she has the Buddha-Nature, she is a man."


