﻿Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Anders said:
Hilarious though. What are they going to use them for?

Astus wrote:
It's part of having a perfect body. If one doesn't have it, he cannot become a monk. It also has to be functional. More fun stuff about masculinity and Buddhism: https://books.google.com/books?id=0lZRt8i7Xq8C


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Dan74 said:
It is hard not to form prejudices when consistently subjected to negative experiences with a certain group.

Astus wrote:
The moment we think of a group we work with prejudices. A small group of male friends don't think of each other as "he is a man, therefore he acts in a certain way", because they can take each other to be individuals, and have preconceptions based on their unique history of interactions.

Buddhist wisdom is very much applicable here. One has to recognise that conceptual categories are nothing more than conditioned ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: According to Mahayana, is everything our karma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
When you say 'compassion is based on ignorance for ordinary beings', is what you mean that what ordinary beings take to be compassion is not actually compassion, but only attachment?

Astus wrote:
It is compassion, why wouldn't it be? But it goes with attachment, therefore maintains the ideas of subject, action, and object. Based on ignorance it is called compassion (karuna), and based on wisdom it is great compassion (mahakaruna).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 6:06 PM
Title: Re: According to Mahayana, is everything our karma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
If one acts from compassion, is that the result of karma also? If it is, it is hard to see how liberation is possible at all.

Astus wrote:
There is the description of the 12 links of dependent origination that neatly tells how from ignorance and action comes about. There is also the reverse of the 12 links describing how liberation comes about. Compassion is based on ignorance for ordinary beings, therefore it creates good karma. Only when it is based on wisdom it is not a karmic act. That's why prajnaparamita is the most important for bodhisattvas, and every other paramita depends on that.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 5:09 PM
Title: Re: According to Mahayana, is everything our karma?
Content:
Boomerang said:
For a long time I've had the understanding that in Mahayana Buddhism, absolutely everything we experience in life is the result of our karma, while in Theravada Buddhism there are exceptions. However, I don't really remember where I learned this from. What do you think?

Astus wrote:
All Buddhist schools point to karma as the fundamental force shaping everyone's experiences, Theravada included. Some may misinterpret the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html as if certain natural factors independently influenced beings, but as it's noted in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's preface, even those factors are results of karma. As one can see in cosmological descriptions, the whole world is generated and sustained by karma. What should be remembered, however, is that not only past but also present actions of body, speech, and mind count.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Malcolm said:
Hence the problem of people being unconscious of patriarchal power relations in which they are embedded.

Astus wrote:
That unconscious part is what I referred to above by saying that men and women equally live in it and keep it alive.

Malcolm said:
Yes, and this points to a deficiency in some Mahāyāna teachings which should be openly explored and not defended as Buddhavacana.

Astus wrote:
There are teachings addressing those deficiencies, even if not many.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
Malcolm said:
But the situation of patriarchal oppression is pervasive in this world among human beings. It is not skillful to teach patriarchal oppression in the name of "skillful means."

Astus wrote:
Patriarchal oppression does not happen to people, it is what people believe in. There is a difference between cultural bias and a small group of people using various methods to force others to follow their orders. When a guru is believed by the whole group to be superior and thus they allow him to have power over them, it is not that the guru had to force them to submit themselves. It actually takes a very aware teacher to recognise the power invested in him and to handle it appropriately.

Malcolm said:
For example, when it says that there are no women in the buddhafield of Amitabha or Bhaisajyaguru, how do you think women feel about this? How would you feel if you were devalued based solely on your genitalia?

Astus wrote:
You might know women who say they accept the traditional values of patriarchy. Now consider women in the actual traditional culture. Most of them can only think that that's how the world works and there is nothing to be done about it. Same goes for men of course. I'm not saying it is good. What I'm saying is that if something seems like a universal value then opposing it is nonsense and practically unthinkable. Another example is torture and capital punishment that one can read about in the Nikayas where they are treated as simple karmic consequences. Women's lower status is just another form of karmic consequence, although not in the Nikayas but in the Mahayana scriptures.

To avoid the usual trappings, it is not grand social and political ideas one should come up with, but focus on the personal cultivation of compassion and wisdom. And then based on that it is possible to explain and realise them on a communal level.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Patriarchy in Vajrayāna
Content:
conebeckham said:
I suppose the question is whether Vajrayana MUST reflect the power structures and dynamics of the environment, with respect to gender, and perhaps other factors

Astus wrote:
Religious communities adapt in order to survive. They preach what people like to hear, otherwise there will be no income. In Mahayana they call this skilful means.

Malcolm said:
The question is really, are Tibetan Buddhist practitioners in the West, who are otherwise in general pro-feminist, liberal, etc., unconsciously preserving antiquated patriarchal power relations in their attempts to be "good" disciples.

Astus wrote:
Those who like to hear liberal things will receive it. Those who are inclined towards hierarchy will receive that. Now let's think a bit about the common mindset of those who willingly submit themselves to church authority. But as long as Buddhism is not the mainstream, conservatives will normally stick with the culturally established ideologies.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Where are the bodhisattvas?
Content:
Footsteps said:
If they are afforded with the awareness of their own minds, they will be afforded with the seed of awareness of which you speak. Thus, it will dawn on them that there is more to mere mental perception as they come to understand the limitations of mental perception...a natural state of development of the human soul.

Astus wrote:
It seems you have not familiarised yourself yet with the meaning of mind only in Buddhism. Might as well start http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/#DefAppOnl.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Where are the bodhisattvas?
Content:
Footsteps said:
This portion is intriguing...
Do you not have awareness of your own mind, even if that awareness only appears in fleeting glimmers?

Astus wrote:
It means ordinary beings do not realise that all experiences are mental fabrications.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Where are the bodhisattvas?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
It is said that buddhas and bodhisattvas have both compassion and the wisdom to employ this compassion to benefit beings.
Yet one needn't look far to see cruelty heaped on misery heaped on natural disasters and decay in this world.
Some even insist on pursuing the very cause of their misery, while others struggle with all their might to overcome adversity yet fail.
Where is this perfect help from enlightened beings? What forms does it take?

Astus wrote:
The fundamental doctrine of Buddhism is karma, and that means everyone experiences what they are conditioned to experience. Through faith and devotion one can have buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest, but not otherwise. That is also the reason behind Amitabha being unable to simply deliver beings to the Pure Land - people have to intentionally aspire for such a birth, hence the necessity of faith, vow, and practice. What you propose, the problem of evil, does not apply to Buddhism, because not even buddhas can magically make any being's karma change. But we can change our own conditioning through mindfulness of gods, bodhisattvas, and buddhas.

At that time Śāriputra was influenced by the Buddha’s numinous charisma to have this thought: “If the bodhisattva’s buddha land is pure according to the purity of the bodhisattva’s mind, then when our World-honored One was a bodhisattva his mind must have been pure. Nevertheless, this buddha land is so impure!”
The Buddha knew what he was thinking and asked him, “What do you think? Although the blind do not see them, can the sun and moon be anything but pure?”
[Śāriputra] answered, “No, World-honored One! This is the fault of the blind, not that of the sun and moon.”
[The Buddha said], “Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s (i.e., my) buddha land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāri putra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.”
(Vimalakirti  Sutra, ch 1, BDK Ed, p 78)

"Those endowed with unpolluted faith and so forth,
having cultivated the qualities of faith and so on,
will see in their own minds the Buddha’s appearance,
which is perfect and has special signs and marks.
They will see the Buddha while he is walking,
while he is standing, sitting, or resting in sleep.
They will see him in manifold forms of conduct:
when explaining the teaching leading to peace,
when silently resting in meditative equipoise,
or when displaying various forms of miracles.
Possessed of great splendor and magnificence,
[the Buddha] will be seen by all sentient beings.
Once having seen this, they too will wish
to fully join what is named “buddhahood,”
and adopting its causes in a genuine way
they will attain the state they longed for.
These appearances are totally free from ideation
and do not involve the slightest movement at all.
There is nothing of this kind, and yet nevertheless
they are accompanied by great benefit in the world.
“This is the appearance of my own mind.”
Worldly beings do not have such insight.
Yet, their seeing of this visible kaya
will become meaningful for these beings.
Relying on gradually beholding this form,
all those who follow the [Great] Vehicle
will see their genuine inner dharmakaya
by means of the eye of primordial wisdom."
(Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra, p 61-62, tr Fuchs)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
What differentiates practitioners of Mahamudra or HYT from Dzogchenpa, view, practice, both?

Astus wrote:
That sounds to me too broad a question. Practitioners are individuals, and people can use for practice all sorts of things, and approach the same method in many ways. As for the ideal part, there is creation stage, and there are various forms of completion stage: six yogas, dzogchen, and mahamudra. All four could be combined, all four can be used separately, and in any other setting. Besides that, I guess you are already familiar with the general descriptions of those methods.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You can find the reference in Yarnall's translation of the creation stage section of sngags rim chen mo of Tsongkhapa.

Astus wrote:
Alas, I don't have that one ( https://books.google.com/books?id=4cZyNwAACAAJ ).

Malcolm said:
I am quite certain that the reference refers to Śrī Siṃha.

Astus wrote:
So, was Sri Simha a member of the sahajayogin's group together with Saraha and Maitripa, therefore dzogchen and mahamudra come from the same movement? Was there anyone else who looked into this perhaps, like Sam van Schaik? If not, you might consider coming out with an article yourself.

Malcolm said:
there was push back by the anonymous author of the Hevajra Tantra

Astus wrote:
Ulrich Timme Kragh (Tibetan Yoga and Mysticism, p 70) suggests that Sapan's "view was derived from a stage of Indian Tantrism that was earlier than Bsod nams rinchen's more liberal view", and then writes about Maitripa as a "pertinent watershed in the history of Tantric Buddhism".


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2016 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, it is clearly an earlier, skeptical movement that can be directly traced back to Śrī Siṃha in India, and we have evidence for this in the work of Mañjuśrīkiriti, who mentions Śrī Siṃha by name, as well as other associates of Padmsambhava such as Bhikṣuni Nandi.

Astus wrote:
I've read some works of Mathes but don't remember any mention of Dzogchen there. Do you know which one it was? Or do you mean that Dzogchen has the same origin as Mahamudra in India?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Mahamudra as a separate system from HYT is a Tibetan invention.

Astus wrote:
It is the unique teaching of Gampopa, founder of all Dakpo Kagyu lineages. Besides that, as Malcolm mentioned, there are studies out there about the origins of the Maitripa lineage.

BuddhaFollower said:
Thread should be "HYT same as Dzogchen?"

Astus wrote:
Dzogchen as a separate method is a Tibetan invention as well, maybe even later than Mahamudra. So the question could be "HYT same as HYT?"


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Those who can drawn into everything is that also possible maybe?

Astus wrote:
Why not? On the other hand, Gampopa wrote (JOL, p 251, 252):

"If the meaning of emptiness does not dwell within the mind, we cannot attain liberation by means of the other virtues.
When one is endowed with the meaning of emptiness, there is not a single thing which in not included in this path."

And Lama Zhang (Mahamudra and Related Instructions, p 126):

"In the instant that you realize your own mind,
all good qualities, without exception,
are simultaneously completed without having to accomplish them."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: The 5th Skandha
Content:
Tirisilex said:
I've read that awareness is the only thing that is permanent so awareness

Astus wrote:
Permanent awareness is not consciousness. It is called permanent in the sense that it is without attachment, without anything to identify with. It is eternal in the sense that there has never been any self, and never will be. At the same time, every instance of consciousness is conditioned and impermanent. Might also say that impermanence is permanent. It is a figure of speech, a play with words. As for the awareness aspect, it means that all appearances are what one is aware of, so just as everything is impermanent, they are also aware. It is merely a conceptual category to say that things are objects of awareness.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: First words of Buddha after enligghtenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is a Zen saying. I've done a little search on the topic.

The morning star is mentioned in relation to the time of the Buddha's birth:

T185 太子瑞應本起經 (A.D. 222-228) - 到四月八日夜明星出時，化從右脇生墮地，即行七步，舉右手住而言：『天上天下，唯我為尊。三界皆苦，何可樂者？』 (They arrived on the night of the eighth day of the fourth month when the star comes out, and he was born from the right side and fell to the ground, immediately walked seven steps, raised his right hand and said, "Above and under heaven, only I am honourable. The three worlds are suffering, who can be happy?"

In relation to enlightenment:

T457 彌勒來時經 Maitreyavyākaraṇa(sūtra) (A.D. 317-420) - 彌勒到樹下坐，用四月八日明星出時得佛道。(Maitreya arrives at a tree and sits under it, then on the eighth day of the fourth month when the (morning) star comes out attains the Buddha way.)

Then in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu, the first major collection of Zen stories, simply quotes a text I could not identify, but the star is still only an indicator of time:

T2076  景德傳燈錄 (AD 1004) 故普集經云。菩薩於二月八日明星出時。成佛號天人師。 (As the Universal Vinaya Sutra says, "The bodhisattva on the eighth day of the second month when the star comes out became buddha and the teacher of men and gods.)

It is here in Dahui's (1089–1163) writing that a connection is given between seeing the star and enlightenment:

T1998A 大慧普覺禪師語録 (12th c.) 因見明星忽然悟道。便見自己本來面目。 (Because he had seen the star he suddenly awoke to the way. That is, he has seen his own original face.)

There are numerous results for the expression 見明星悟道 (see the star and attain the way), including Dogen's Shobogenzo, but mostly in late texts and those not included in the Taisho Tripitaka, i.e. mainly works of Chinese origin.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Just now tonite found another source for this. Daigan Matsunaga's book Foundation Japanese Buddhism Volume 1.1974. Page 38,39, 260

Astus wrote:
So it is the Sarvastivadin definition of a moment. But if one moment is 0.013 seconds, then a second is little less than 77 moments.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
That would be institutionalized Buddhism, where students can specialize and develop into authorities on a given subject. What do you think Garchen's speciality is? Surely its not in showing people how groundless their lives are. If they are looking for that aspect of truth they would do better to look in a book.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how institutionalisation applies here. In fact, apologetics is normally part of the doctrine of any religion. For instance, the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html is a great example of that, and all the later developments in Buddhist thought contain similar arguments and refutations of incorrect views. However, although there is a growing amount of literature on the finer levels of the Dharma in English, it still seems to be an alien subject to those who identify themselves as practitioners. And that is one of the possible answers to the OP where it raises the question about the possible lack of success in pursuing the Buddhist path. That is, from incorrect view there is only incorrect meditation.

Another error is to take a teaching out of context, and reinterpret a practical instruction into a general doctrinal statement. That is the age old neyartha-nitartha problem actually.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
See also an older thread: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=6459


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I agree. The texts are the only way to separate the teaching from the innovations that creep in to these little semi formal private interviews and intimate instructions.

maybay said:
"The texts" abound with controversy. The error is not in not fact checking teachings, its in drawing your own conclusions about their applicability based on your experience of them alone, a naïveté the Zen school is renowned for.

Astus wrote:
Isn't it the Dalai Lama who urges return to Nalanda style Buddhism when teachers were proficient in engaging with non-Buddhist thinkers? I think the error that seems to be in Garchen Rinpoche's teaching comes from being surrounded only by Buddhists. I see similar teachings in East Asian Buddhism as well that can be easily interpreted as a sort of substance/substratum doctrine. But again, I attribute the development of such terminology to the lack of an opposite party that teaches any type of eternal spirit theory, because without them there is no reason to be careful and strict in how one teaches the Dharma. Apparently in India they had to keep the sword of wisdom sharp to cut off all sorts of wrong views, and there was no place for anything that even resembles an atman.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Interest in Dharma doesn't exist from it's own side; even our interest develops from receiving Buddha's blessings. I'm not saying that Buddhas liberate us with no effort on our part, that's your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.  it's a co-operative effort - the Buddhas provide teachings, blessings and emanations and we practise the path.

Astus wrote:
If buddhas can somehow influence people, why not everyone is already enlightened? If you say that it's because beings' minds are deluded and cannot see the blessings and such from the buddhas, then there is no relevance at all whether there are such influences coming from them or not, since in both cases it's up to the beings to develop themselves. So, there seems to be no logical way to claim such influence in any way.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, it seems that people don't get that I was attempting to humorously get back "on topic" by referring to something "even the Buddha couldn't do".

Astus wrote:
And what I intended to point out, and I guess it is on topic, is that this concept of inexplicability is not unique to Dzogchen, and it doesn't mean that the Buddha had some sort of linguistic difficulties, nor is it about a mystical realm beyond language.

“Friend, when you are asked: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, is there something else?’ you say: ‘Do not say so, friend.’ And when you are asked: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, is there nothing else? . . . Is there both something else and nothing else? . . . Is there neither something else nor nothing else?’ [in each case] you say: ‘Do not say so, friend.’ In what way should the meaning of this statement be understood?”
(1) “Friend, if one says: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is something else,’ one proliferates that which is not to be proliferated. (2) If one says: ‘Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is nothing else,’ one proliferates that which is not to be proliferated. (3) If one says: ‘Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is both something else and nothing else,’ one proliferates that which is not to be proliferated. (4) If one says: ‘Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is neither something else nor nothing else,’ one proliferates that which is not to be proliferated.
Friend, as far as the range of the six bases for contact extends, just so far extends the range of proliferation. As far as the range of proliferation extends, just so far extends the range of the six bases for contact. With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact there is the cessation of proliferation, the subsiding of proliferation.”
(Kotthita Sutta, AN 4.173 / II.161, tr Bhikkhu Bodhi)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Jigme Lingpa famously quipped:
"Even the Buddha couldn't explain the ground."
I'm paraphrasing here.

Astus wrote:
That's not because there is any fault in the teachings or because of some inability. It simply means there is nothing to explain, as it is the end of grasping at concepts.

"there is no concrete dharma which the Tathagata has spoken. And why? The dharmas spoken by the Tathagata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken. It is neither dharma nor no dharma.  And why?  Unconditioned dharma distinguishes worthy sages."
( http://www.cttbusa.org/vajra/vajrasutra.asp, ch 7)

"The pacification of all objectification
And the pacification of all fabrication is peace.
No Dharma was taught by the Buddha
At any time, in any place, to any person."
(MMK 25.24, tr Ocean of Reasoning, p 532)

"It is not existent since even the victorious ones do not see it.
...
When looking again and again into the unseen mind,
The fact that there is nothing to see is vividly seen as it is."
(Rangjung Dorje: Aspirational Prayer for Mahamudra, tr Song of Karmapa, RY Pubs, p 13-14)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
monktastic said:
What in particular do you take issue with?

Astus wrote:
Positing an independent consciousness is a problematic view, to say the least. Of course, figuratively it's possible to say that the mind is unbound from all appearances when there is no more attachment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Kim said:
Pointing out instruction by Alan Wallace
But as you cut through to that which is aware, you may cut through to a dimension of awareness that is unborn and unceasing, that never moves, because it is not in time. It is unchanging and you can never wrap your conceptual mind around it. Because this baseline, this ground of awareness, from which all conditioned states of consciousness emerge. Transcends the very parameters of existence and non-existence. It transcends all conceptual categories. It can be known. It is not an ultimate mystery. It can be known directly without mediation, but only by itself. It can know itself. But your conceptual mind cannot grasp it. It is beyond its pay grade, it is beyond its scope.

Astus wrote:
Or we could as well call that the soul, the true self, atman, the witness, etc. How can that even be considered Buddhism? On the other hand, with such a view it is no surprise one can easily fall into extreme simplifications that we see in Neo-Advaita and mindfulness teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So where this karma is acquired, is an open question.

Astus wrote:
Question to whom? There are practically infinite worlds and realms in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Only to westerners.

Astus wrote:
Why would that be? History is not a purely Western field of study. The Japanese are at the top level in Buddhist studies, and most Asian Buddhist countries are catching up. The historical perspective gained currency among Asian Buddhists in the 19th century, and has been found a valid method in researching past events. The Taisho Tripitaka compiled in 1924 is an obvious example. So it might be that only Tibetans have not yet caught up with the rest of the world.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Which is relevant to whom, exactly?

Astus wrote:
Good question. I think it matters in case of interschool debates when historicity is brought into the argument. But not when measuring the value of certain views and methods.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Oh, what Dzogchen teachings says concerning this is that in every eon from beginningless time, Dzogchen teachings appear first and disappear last.

Astus wrote:
I think that's the biggest claim I have heard yet in Buddhism. But just to turn it on its head, it could be said, again from a modern historical point of view, that such a claim makes it likely the latest on the list of sets of teachings to appear.

Malcolm said:
So, we have our cake and can eat it too...


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Dependent Origination and the Cosmological Argument
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So in the Western form, the cosmological argument is that every contingent being is dependent on the uncaused cause or first cause, which is God, without which neither they nor anything else would exist.

Astus wrote:
The same argument was made by Hindus and Taoists as well, and it directly opposes the Buddhist teaching of dependent origination. It even contradicts their own idea that everything must have a cause to then assume something without a cause.

Wayfarer said:
Now obviously Buddhism does not argue for the existence of God

Astus wrote:
They actually refute all attempts of establishing an ultimate substratum or originator, because it denies the whole teaching of karma and rebirth.

Wayfarer said:
so the argument from dependent origination points to a different conclusion, which is that 'Everything except Nirvāṇa are the consequence of Pratītyasamutpāda'.

Astus wrote:
In Madhyamaka dependent origination is nirvana. To posit a nirvana outside of samsara is the mistaken view of sravakas.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Eastern-Western Dharma and the "Great Dharma Drum"
Content:
jmlee369 said:
I used the term Chan master more to emphasise that there are no hard distinctions in Chinese Buddhist practice. ... but more because it is part of their teaching and training methods.

Astus wrote:
It is part of the whole of Chinese Buddhism, so in that sense everyone is a Chan teacher. They are also Pure Land teachers, Sutra teachers, Shastra teachers, and Vinaya teachers. And being all of that is what actually being a Dharma teacher is about. So probably there should be different categories to clarify the differences among those groups, if there are any at all beyond personal styles. For instance, Shengyan follows Yinshun in taking emptiness as the ultimate, instead of buddha-nature or mind-only, and he does not agree to sudden enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Question about agamas
Content:
Astus wrote:
A study of the Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Pali versions by Norman Joseph Smith: https://archive.org/details/The17VersionsOfTheBuddhasFirstDiscourse


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 5:41 PM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
jmlee369 said:
My point was made against claims that the nikayas are what the Buddha taught verbatim.

Astus wrote:
That's right. As I http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=351585#p351585: "the Nikayas are still the closest to the original and the most accurate resource of the earliest teachings".

But as for being a verbatim record, I don't know anyone who actually studied the texts to say that. One can find in the footnotes of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations how he considers a number of sources and overrules the Theravada commentarial tradition, or occasionally even the text itself. And that is the case with likely all the other studies of Theravada texts in English.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Dzogchen teachings are the earliest Buddhist teachings, predating all others by eons and eons.

Astus wrote:
Dzogchen may teach that there was a first buddha. But I think everyone else says that there is no beginning of buddhas. So I guess infinite beats first.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Eastern-Western Dharma and the "Great Dharma Drum"
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
Yet there is a book on Chan he wrote that is available in English. It has a long title: Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path as Taught by a Modern Chinese Master. I've actually been thinking of buying it because of watching his youtube videos.

Astus wrote:
I didn't say he had not taught meditation. That's exactly what I wanted to highlight that he was seen in the West as a Chan master, and not as an educated Dharma teacher.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
heart said:
So you and jmlee369 are not agreeing, perhaps you have some academical support for your point of view?

Astus wrote:
Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali: https://books.google.hu/books?id=fK9zBwAAQBAJ

Comparative studies:

Mun-keat Choong: https://books.google.hu/books?id=yLU-oZio9_oC

Bhiksu Thich Minh Chau: https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Madhyama-agama-Majjhima-nikaya/dp/8120807944

Bhikkhu Analayo: http://www.indologica.de/drupal/?q=node/1700

Also a great site: https://suttacentral.net/


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
undefineable said:
What about the enlightened?

Astus wrote:
The difference between deluded and enlightened is whether there is identification with the aggregates or not. The five families stand for the pure vision of the five aggregates, that is, when there is no more attachment. But the aggregates don't cease to function when there is no clinging to them.
If any conceptualisations are false, while descriptions of true insights might point to truth, then the question is how to distinguish the valid insights from false conceptualisations, particularly when a teacher has made a (non-literal) statement that must then be interpreted non-conceptually [/ have the insight that inspired it identified] by an unrealised student. Given the vast range of material written in Buddhism's name, going even by the meaning implied by a statement is probably not a good place to start _
The insight is the confirmation of the Dharma, the first hand experience of the teachings received. So it's not that one first has an experience and then an explanation, but first one has a view and then its proof in experience. That's why correct view matters. Another aspect is the decrease of unwholesome factors and the increase of the wholesome, the development of the 37 factors of enlightenment and the bodhisattva qualities.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
heart said:
So you think the academical and the historical perspective are different?

Astus wrote:
No, by historical I meant the academical study of history.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Title: Re: Eastern-Western Dharma and the "Great Dharma Drum"
Content:
jmlee369 said:
even though he was a Chan master

Astus wrote:
This is more a Western bias to think of Chan as something like what one can read in old texts. Shengyen was famous for his scholarly works, books that have not yet been translated to English, and he did not call himself a Chan master - i.e. chanshi, that is, meditation teacher/instructor - partially because his focus was not on sitting for years in some remote hermitage. Even when he has spent six years in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY3gmyMkrM, while he did practice meditation, he also did lots of repentance practices, studied the scriptures, and composed texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2016 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
jmlee369 said:
The notion that the Pali scriptures somehow capture the original words of the Buddha is a long discredited one in academia.

Astus wrote:
From a historical perspective, the Nikayas are still the closest to the original and the most accurate resource of the earliest teachings, as it has been confirmed through the comparative studies with the Chinese Agamas and fragments in other languages.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2016 at 5:18 PM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
undefineable said:
Right, so one observes mental processes that the Buddha labelled skandhas. The question you couldn't follow was intended to ask whether the other skandhas are consciously experienced or not, but you seem to have answered that _ _

Astus wrote:
Answered http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=351458#p351458: "What one is not conscious of, that one does not experience at all, it does not occur as a phenomenon, and consequently one cannot identify with it or relate to it. But I believe we all have bodies, feelings, perception, intention, and consciousness; and we interact with them practically every moment, or rather we are them."

That is, yes, aggregates are what we experience, in fact, that's the whole of our experience. As the 8000 Prajnaparamita Sutra says (XII.2, tr Conze): "The five skandhas have by the Tathagata have declared as ‘world’ [loka]. Which five? Form, feeling, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness."

undefineable said:
The form of self being grasped defining the suffering risked in so doing, with philosophers presumably liable to experience 'true-self-as-pure-awareness'-type suffering (given your earlier thoughts)

Astus wrote:
Suffering is said to have three types: suffering of pain, suffering of change, suffering of conditioning. It does not matter what appearance one is attached to, those three can occur. Those who strongly identify with a pure awareness may be born in the formless realms at best, but it's still not an escape, even if they believe it to be.

undefineable said:
If you are merely yourself (in the sense of your own habitual patterns) eternally (a couple of samsaric cycles or whatever in temporal terms perhaps), then how is it possible to see things from someone else's point of view? To consider alternative courses of action? To be 'open' rather than "tight" and fully pre-determined?

Astus wrote:
Everyone is merely who they are. Habits are influential, but not the only factors in one's actions. People have intelligence, so they can reconsider things and reflect on their ideas. Such intelligence is practically a basic requirement for life, so that one can effectively react to changing events. Of course, the level of intelligence varies among beings in general and among humans in particular.

undefineable said:
As a teenager I entered a powerful and terrifying 'mystic' state in which I didn't so much feel that I didn't exist (c.f. Depersonalisation Disorder), as that I was lost in a vast cloud of 'potentially anyone and everyone' while at the same time (perhaps because rather than in spite of that) trapped in "no-one". I'm not bothered that this isn't Buddhdharma, just curious as to how it fits with everything else (beyond being ). If the Buddha's message is simply "you'd be truer and better to yourself if you just cool it", then teachings like sunyata sound irrelevant.

Astus wrote:
Experiences and their interpretations are two different things. People can have all sorts of experiences, and can come up with a large variety of explanations for those (as shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7YSlJReVM ). All experiences can be categorised into the five aggregates, and all ordinary (non-Buddhist) interpretations fall into one of the 62 wrong views or just generally the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. The Buddhist approach is to recognise that all experiences are impermanent, unsatisfactory, empty, and not self. That's how sunyata is very relevant, at least if one aims for enlightenment. Or, to go with the Yogacara approach, all experiences are mind-made, all conceptualisations are false.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
undefineable said:
How can these factors be said to have an existence separate from consciousness? Before awareness and (often) an aware response, surely it's all just computation

Astus wrote:
Why would they be separate? These categories are tools for practice, to create a general map so that one can distinguish appearances in a skilful way. But if you want further details, I recommend you dig into some abhidharma works.

undefineable said:
Has science shown that consciousness apprehends/arises with objects after the earlier skandhas have run their course? If so, then is this something one can nonetheless become aware of through meditation?

Astus wrote:
I can't follow your question. The skandhas are a Buddhist idea, not scientific. Furthermore, skandhas designate general groups (i.e. aggregates) of experiences/phenomena that we all have. They are not objects of themselves, nobody sees "a skandha".

undefineable said:
If one was born with the habitual tendency to see things this way, then what are the dangers?

Astus wrote:
People normally grasp a form of self. The danger is all the sufferings of samsara.

undefineable said:
If the nature of mind is open and so on, then how can it also be so tightly restricted to the limited contents of very specific computational processes - in a way that so much implies an inability to rise above itself?

Astus wrote:
Open versus tight? Such expressions in Buddhism are figurative, there is no such thing as an actually open or tight consciousness. When it's said that the nature of mind is spacious and open, that is meant to help one let go of all the worries and attachments, but not to be taken literally.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
krodha said:
That said, obviously discussing the taste of sugar implies "ideas" regarding that taste, but the taste itself is not an idea.

Astus wrote:
"If a word and its referent are not different,
[The word] fire would burn one’s mouth;
If they’re different there’ll be no comprehension.
This you, the speaker of truth, have stated."
(Nagarjuna: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/html-assets/WorldTranscendentHym.pdf, v 7)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 4:00 PM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
undefineable said:
Can they take place outside consciousness, semi-/sub-consciouness and awareness altogether, or do they simply amount to a subjective process of dealing with the objects of consciousness?

Astus wrote:
Feelings, perceptions, and formations are mental factors, objects of consciousness. That is, feeling when something is pleasurable or painful, recognising what a perceived thing is, and relating with some form of intention. Consciousness is what is aware of those factors.

undefineable said:
If so, wouldn't consciousness be the first or second of the five skandhas rather than the fifth?

Astus wrote:
I think the reason of the order is how one may identify with those aggregates, where considering the body as the self or relating to the self is the primary, then comes the rest. Consciousness is the last one because usually only philosophers and meditators imagine that their true self is pure awareness.

undefineable said:
If, on the other hand, the former is true, and the untrained are unable to become aware of their perception/feeling/categorisation(insert preferred translation here)

Astus wrote:
What one is not conscious of, that one does not experience at all, it does not occur as a phenomenon, and consequently one cannot identify with it or relate to it. But I believe we all have bodies, feelings, perception, intention, and consciousness; and we interact with them practically every moment, or rather we are them. The main error is of course the mistaken identification that we are the body and the mind, or that we are their owner.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
Tirisilex said:
It doesnt make sense that the 8 Consciousnesses would be the aggregate of consciousness because the aggregates of senses and or perceptions could be argued to be the exact same of the first 5 consciousnesses of the 8. So how could the 8 consciousnesses fit in the aggregate of consciousness alone?

Astus wrote:
The usual six consciousnesses fall under the aggregate of consciousness. Yogacara simply added two more to the list, so that they can explain in another way how karma works. The other three aggregates of the mental part are not consciousnesses (citta-dharma) but mental elements (caitasika-dharma).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: The continuation between births
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
do you think that any attempt to speculate as to the nature of the continuation between apparent "beings" undergoing rebirth, leads innately wrong-views regarding excessive self-conceptualization, challenging anātman -teachings?

Astus wrote:
There is a continuation because of karma, and the process is described as the 12 links of dependent origination. So, by all means go on and contemplate on it.

Coëmgenu said:
The Buddha often avoided a lot of discourse about "selves that transcend the immediate self", which leads to the famous eternalism/annihilism discourse.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean a true and eternal soul beyond the five aggregates? That has been definitively rejected and refuted.

Coëmgenu said:
Is trying to conceptualize and understand the precise nature of the continuity from one birth to another just an example of most likely falling into a bit of an eternalist manner of thinking, foreign to proper Buddhadharma?

Astus wrote:
Contemplating rebirth is a fine Buddhist practice. Dependent origination is a wonderful and fruitful topic. But you might want to read about those things first, just to clarify what the Buddha's teachings actually are.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 14th, 2016 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Eastern-Western Dharma and the "Great Dharma Drum"
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
"The Great Dharma Drum", they seem to be put out from a Chinese Pure Land group

Astus wrote:
http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about.aspx?sn=110 is not a PL group but rather general Chinese Buddhism that puts emphasis on Humanistic Buddhism, Chan, and studies.

Coëmgenu said:
addresses very different concerns and questions than I often see addressed in Western presentations of Buddhadharma

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean there. First of all, those videos have English subtitles, intended for a global audience. Furthermore, DDM has several centres worldwide, and translations from Ven. Shengyan are also available. There are other Buddhist groups from Taiwan as well, including http://www.amtbweb.org/index.html that is actually focused on Pure Land teachings, that have spread in Western countries, and you can find similar presentations like in that video.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 14th, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
It is my understanding that the Chán Buddhists interpretation of such practices

Astus wrote:
"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)

Yuren said:
at least since the time of Hanshan Deqing, but definitely even before that, is that single-minded repetition of any mantra (in truth, they don't really care about the content, one could be repeating "Pizza-hut pizza-hut kentucky fried chicken and a pizza-hut mcdonalds mcdonalds" and get perfect enlightenment from that, in theory - if one becomes one with the repetition so that the split between subject and object is shown to be null in a single thought-moment).  Chu-Hung Hanshan,  Yin-Yuan Lung-Chi, Xuyun, ... this has been the standard in Chinese Chán for a long time? Correct me if I err?

Astus wrote:
One can certainly use the name or a mantra as an object of concentration, and with that fend off appearances. This is a method accepted in Chan, and in common Buddhist terms it is a fine way to train in calm abiding. But, and this is my general objection, concentration and calm abiding is not enough for enlightenment. The moment one loses one's focus, one is back in the afflicted mind.

Yuren said:
Ippen is completely in line with the Chinese style of Pure Land Zen practice, similar to Xuyun, Hanshan, etc.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it seems so.

Yuren said:
I don't see why you don't allow that single-minded recitation of a phrase would bring one to wisdom? ANYTHING can bring you to wisdom. A Japanese Zen disciple was apparently enlightened by hearing the sound of his piss when he was in the toilet. That's the point of the Lotus Sutra, that each phenomenon is the Middle; each - if viewed properly - is the Buddha-Dharma. And that is the logic behind why the Nembutsu and the NRMK can "work". At least that's how I understand it.

Astus wrote:
Let me highlight it: "each phenomenon is the Middle; each - if viewed properly - is the Buddha-Dharma". The proper view does not come from concentration, from recitation, or from random events. That's why there is a definite need for the teachings, that's why a buddha had to start the wheel of Dharma rolling, and that's why one has to learn the teachings. Recitation and concentration were methods well known even before Shakyamuni, they were (and still are) common practices of Hindu yogis, and found even outside India. That's why one can achieve such supernormal levels of absorptions as the formless dhyanas, and still be bound by birth and death.

Yuren said:
I guess that you only disagree about the DEGREE of wisdom that such single-minded recitation can bestow? You agree it can be efficacious to a certain degree , but not that it can deliver the final result ?

Astus wrote:
Yes, like that. Consider the four types of buddha-remembrance (四種念佛). Of them the first one, " http://eubuddhist.blogspot.hu/2015/10/real-mark-buddha-remembrance.html " (實相念佛), is what I call proper Chan practice of immediate enlightenment. Recitation helps to calm (samatha) the mind, huatou helps to see (vipasyana) the mind, but both precede realisation of buddha-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Queequeg said:
In the Sudden teaching, you are introduced to the Buddha in full. In that instant, you see the Primordial Buddha's timeless, eternal Trikaya. Even without understanding, you mind has been made aware of it in full. Understanding, as you agree, is subjective knowledge, meaning, how "I" relates to Buddha. In relating the subject to the Buddha, alternatively, the True Aspect, the subject is, in that instant, completely integrated with Buddha, and therefore, enlightened, even if that integration is not understood at the grosser levels of consciousness.

Astus wrote:
What I fail to see here is how that is more than rhetoric and theory. Since it has no bearing on the individual, no actual liberation on the personal level, calling it a sudden and perfect teaching amounts to nothing more than nice words. In Zen, that similarly claims to be a sudden teaching, there is necessarily actual realisation of buddha-nature, any if one can merely repeat some words about how zazen is enlightenment, one is promptly sent back to the zafu.

Queequeg said:
Progress in the path is more or less drawing out the full implications and conforming our thoughts, words and deeds with Buddha.

Astus wrote:
And that is where it turns out to be very much a gradual path. Yes, all beings have buddha-nature, and then we can say that the practice is about uncovering that. This is actually a common view all over the Mahayana schools.

Queequeg said:
In the Sudden Teaching, where the gate of entry is the very instant of encounter with reality, there is no subject-object rumination, but rather, immediate immersion into the reality of Buddha which is timeless, without top or bottom, or beginning or end, start or finish.

Astus wrote:
As you say, there has to be an encounter with reality. To say that such an encounter happens on an unconscious level, like the teaching where even if one hears the word buddha one will eventually attain enlightenment, that is not encounter with reality but karma. Suppose we walk towards each other on a street but we do not recognise each other and just pass by, while it might be acceptable to call this meeting on an unconscious level, practically speaking we would not have actually met.

Queequeg said:
It was perfect to begin with - our problem before was that we did not realize it was all Buddhahood to begin with.

Astus wrote:
It makes no difference. All Buddhist schools agree that there is no self, never has been and never will be. To hear the doctrine of anatma is one thing, to understand it is another, and to actually attain the realisation is a third. Still, we can say that no-self is eternal and universal, it makes no practical difference to merely accept those ideas. And no matter how long one believes in it, without practice, there is no realisation.

Queequeg said:
In the Perfect and Sudden Teaching, that repetition of NMRK is the expression of that mind of instant Buddhahood. If you have any question about its efficacy despite it not making sense to your logical mind, I would suggest trying it.

Astus wrote:
There are clear descriptions of the path from delusion to enlightenment in Buddhism, for instance in Tiantai. What I don't see yet is how Nichiren's teachings fit into it. How can one recognise the emptiness of self and dharmas  through recitation (or other methods available in it)?

Queequeg said:
In the instant you hear the Sublime Dharma, insight does arise - at the stage of Verbal Identity

Astus wrote:
Why call it insight when one merely hears the teachings? No insight happens, no experience occurs beyond hearing words. That is simply called the first stage of learning that must be followed by understanding and insight in order to gain wisdom, that is, personal encounter with reality.

Queequeg said:
The recitation of the Daimoku is the essential teaching. It is the Sublime Gate that all Buddhas emerge from. But, the Daimoku, the particular string of syllables, is actually arbitrary. In other times and places it is expressed differently. In some places its expressed in 24 characters, or millions of characters, or through fragrances... its expression is unlimited. But here, in these particular circumstances, Nichiren taught it as NMRK.

Astus wrote:
Then what recitation is the essential? Reciting the Lotus Sutra in general? But if expression is unlimited, then what is it actually?

Queequeg said:
to live out the Lotus Sutra itself. To make our own body the expression of the Lotus Sutra. This is done by introducing people to the Sublime Dharma, exposing them to the Buddha in full.

Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra is a text, like any other sutra. One can apply the meaning of a text in one's life, but not the text itself. So, how is the Lotus Sutra expressed in other than words?

Queequeg said:
Actually, this is the real practice Nichiren taught.

Astus wrote:
The practice of the Lotus Sutra is to tell/recite/preach the Lotus Sutra to others?

Queequeg said:
When you ask if Nichiren taught Makashikan, what do you mean? Ichinen Sanzen is the contemplation at the heart of the Daimoku. Ichinen Sanzen is the Sudden and Perfect teaching, taking any object for contemplation. If you think Ichinen Sanzen is more than what is described...

Astus wrote:
I mean that hearing and reciting words are not the same as understanding them, and understanding is not the same as realising them, therefore chanting sutras cannot be enough for liberation. Do people contemplate ichinen sanzen? Is there a meditation on it, a specific method, like one can contemplate dependent origination and mind-only?

Queequeg said:
That's Kuanting's famous synopsis of Ichinen Sanzen. There's no double speak or hidden meaning. That is it.

Astus wrote:
As it says: "he true aspects [of reality] as the object from the very beginning". Where does the experience of dharmadhatu, of the middle, of suchness, of quiescent and luminous dharmas occur in recitation? As I have noted before, even though all appearances are without self, one first have to overcome the false view of self to realise it, and it is not enough to just believe that there is no self. So, there is calming and contemplation that leads one to insight, because insight does not happen on its own, nor only by faith.

Queequeg said:
When we completely integrate, that's it. Nothing more to do.

Astus wrote:
What is integrated and how is it done? Do you mean making recitation a 24/7 occupation for the mind/mouth?

Queequeg said:
the teachings that fully explicate this teaching.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean there is more than NMRK? What is fully explicated?

Queequeg said:
NAMU MYOHO RENGE KYO. You're free. Single Mindedly hold that teaching and you'll find the truth of my words, "You're free."

Astus wrote:
Now it sounds like that it's believed to be a magic spell, a mantra. But no matter how long one recites "Gate gate paragate parasamgate svaha", no perfect wisdom will ever come from it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
Not even advanced Bodhisattvas see their own Buddha-Nature clearly. That is something reserved to Buddhas.
So we can only "know" it through hearing (about it), verbally. Through deep listening and in faith.

Astus wrote:
Then I still don't see the practical value here.

Yuren said:
The text called The Odaimoku of the Lotus Sutra by Nichiren seems to suggest the mere repetition without understanding is efficacious: http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/14

Astus wrote:
It seems to claim two things related to efficacy (not considering all the paragraphs about the superiority of the Lotus Sutra):

Thus faith is the basic requirement for entering the way of the Buddha. In the fifty-two stages of bodhisattva practice, the first ten stages, dealing with faith, are basic, and the first of these ten stages is that of arousing pure faith. Though lacking in knowledge of Buddhism, a person of faith, even if dull-witted, is to be reckoned as a person of correct views. But even though one has some knowledge of Buddhism, if one is without faith, then one is to be considered a slanderer and an icchantika, or person of incorrigible disbelief.
(p 141)

Thus, as we have seen, even those who lack understanding, so long as they chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, can avoid the evil paths.
(p 142)

That is, faith is the entrance to the path - but not the whole path -, and one can be saved from the evil paths by it. Now, comparing that to the Pure Land teaching of reciting the name, thereby one gains birth in Sukhavati and consequently attains enlightenment, and additionally it purifies karma (although this has little importance, since one can never be born in any samsaric realms anyway).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
As far as a meditation instruction? All over the place iirc. I've seen the same instruction in Mahamudra writings I'm certain, heck..I think I even read some Thai Forest people and Zen people with the instruction to observe the observer, know the knower etc. Not saying it's the same thing exactly in those contexts of course...

Astus wrote:
Mahamudra vipasyana instruction starts with first observing the mind, then thoughts, then external phenomena. As for Zen, it is one of the first questions (huatou) given: Who is it?; or in China especially: Who is reciting the name? (i.e. asking this while chanting Namo Amituo Fo). By the way, Neo-Advaita has this method as well, particularly in Ramana's community, since they actually believe in an ultimate observer.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Queequeg said:
So returning to Verbal Identity, what we find is that it refers to that moment where we have consciousness of words without any understanding of their meaning. There is not anything in that which we might understand as the English word "faith".

Astus wrote:
That is, one simply hears syllables and repeats those syllables without any consideration of meaning, like an audio record, or a parrot. Is that what you mean by Nichiren's interpretation of faith?

Queequeg said:
One of Nichiren's main points throughout his writings is the necessity of persisting in Verbal Identity in the face of obstacles and distractions. Again, though, this is not faith in the sense of holding to something that we don't already know, but rather holding to the Verbal Identity which we know even when doing so is disadvantageous or even dangerous.

Astus wrote:
That is, just keep repeating the words, right?

Queequeg said:
I don’t know where you get this idea that chanting the Daimoku “creates” insight. Insight comes as we integrate the Daimoku in our lives. Despite the insistence of some Nichiren Buddhists on the power of mere recitation to lead to enlightenment, they’re wrong, at least to the extent that chanting all your waking hours will not lead to enlightenment, not anytime soon, anyway. And contrary to what you seem to think, Nichiren taught much more than reciting the Daimoku. The practices that really lead to enlightenment are the same as in any school of Buddhism – putting the teachings into practice in our moment to moment life.

Astus wrote:
This is somewhat new to me. I thought the recitation of the sutra title is considered enough for buddhahood. If you say there are other practices, I have not yet encountered with them. So, do they teach the Makashikan and such?

Queequeg said:
One thing to keep in mind, we are talking about a Sudden and Perfect teaching, so ordinary ideas about gradual development are not applicable here.

Astus wrote:
As your quote says: "involves taking the true aspects [of reality] as the object from the very beginning". At what point one arrives at the realisation of suchness in Nichiren's teachings?

Queequeg said:
even as we don’t understand the symbols. Notwithstanding, the symbols are the reality itself.

Astus wrote:
All beings experience the same way, but they are not free, exactly because they do not understand suchness.

Queequeg said:
At later stages, the True Aspect is contemplated and gradually understanding arises.

Astus wrote:
What is that contemplation practice in Nichiren's school?

Queequeg said:
the difference is that understanding arises subjectively

Astus wrote:
That's what really matters, isn't it?

Queequeg said:
chanting the Daimoku and fully realizing it are not different in fundamental reality

Astus wrote:
That's merely theoretical, and not an actual attainment. How does one go from delusion to enlightenment then?

Queequeg said:
For that matter, there isn’t anything that is not a path that leads to enlightenment in the Sudden and Perfect Teaching

Astus wrote:
I don't see how that can be possible. If anything is a path, then all beings are already on the path. Furthermore, talking of a path, it is not sudden anymore. Not to mention what you wrote a paragraph before: "the True Aspect is contemplated and gradually understanding arises".

So, as you might see, this is somewhat confusing to me. Chanting does not lead to enlightenment, but anything can be the path, and while it is sudden there is a gradual development.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
Well. What is Amitabha?
According to Shinran, the Supreme Buddha has no form, but because formlessness is not comprehensible to us, forms are expediently taught, such as "Amida": Infinite Light. The name Amida stresses the aspect of infinite life and infinite light of the Buddha. But what even is a Buddha?
...
He's saying Tathagata equals Buddha-Nature equals Nirvana. This is quite a profound, revolutionary statement.

Astus wrote:
The trikaya theory has been around well before Shinran, and even before the trikaya theory the doctrine of the dharmakaya was formed, so saying that a buddha is nirvana/dharmadhatu doesn't sound revolutionary to me. On the other hand, it seems irrelevant from the perspective of attaining birth in the Pure Land. I'm sure Shinran had his reasons to explain things the way he did, but I don't know who his intended audience was.

Yuren said:
My relationship to my Buddha-Nature is the relationship to my own future Buddhahood. To myself as a (future) Buddha.

Astus wrote:
How could one have a relationship with one's buddha-nature? One may have some ideas about what it is, but that's all. What is the practical value of that on the Pure Land path?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Queequeg said:
When Nichiren refers to faith 信, its not faith in the sense of grasping an object and then willfully putting trust or belief in it. If anything, its a removal of resistance to very simply "hearing the teaching". That is why its a teaching appropriate for even a person with no capactity. What Nichiren is getting at in terms of "faith" is something actually pretty close to... adhimukti.

Astus wrote:
I don't really see the difference you make here. As your quotes and comments said, faith is the initial stage where one accepts the teachings as valid, even though there is no understanding yet, and that trust is what allows one to being practice and learning. This sounds to me no different from how faith is part of the Buddhist teachings in both Sravakayana and Mahayana.

Queequeg said:
I'm not quite sure where you are going with this.

Astus wrote:
That faith is simply faith in the teachings, the initial stage on the path, and nothing more.

Queequeg said:
Lastly, though, you seem to assume that "emptiness" is the end goal of Lotus Buddhism

Astus wrote:
I meant it in the madhyamika sense and did not consider Tiantai interpretation. That is, in madhyamaka emptiness is dependent origination, and the two together is the middle way itself. But I think this is besides the topic here.

Queequeg said:
Again, not believe, but actually see the Buddha, grok the Buddha, in his full breadth and depth for even a single moment. Isn’t that by definition, enlightenment? If you can see the Buddha in full, what do you not see?

Astus wrote:
What I cannot see is how reciting the title of a sutra creates such an insight. I can understand the logic behind the Pure Land doctrine of reciting the name and thus attaining birth in a buddha-land. But how can recitation generate wisdom?

Queequeg said:
Just to criticize your whole approach here

Astus wrote:
I simply try to be as clear as possible with how I understand the topic, in the hope that you can respond with some clarifying statements and arguments.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
What you may find on general websites of rinzai and soto are very basic instructions how to sit in zazen, how to regulate body breathing and mind.... those are not instructions you may receive from the master.. it is just very outer knowledge of zen for not informed or rather public outer presentation for interested.

Astus wrote:
In that case, even though there is no method in Zen, it sounds quite complicated and layered.

Matylda said:
However when we look at Maezumi's statement it has nothing to do with the method of concentration, simple instructions etc. It is about practice-realisation which are inseperable. Mixing these two presentations makes even more confusion.

Astus wrote:
So, here is a more complete quote, to put the original one in context:

"Sitting and just thinking about all sorts of things, one after another, is not zazen; in fact, it's daydreaming! So when sitting, cast aside all these involvements and affairs; just try to sit well.
Occasionally I say "just sit," but you may find that a little hard to do. So you can do it gradually: First try to make yourself empty. If you are working on koans or on breathing, totally put yourself into your koan or into your breathing. Let it occupy you completely.
If you are practicing shikantaza, it's especially hard to do this. In all probability, you are not "just sitting," but "just thinking," "just imagining," or just something else. So in order to get past all that and truly just sit, you must try to cut off clinging to the senses.
When you hear a sound, instead of remaining outside of it, and thereby fighting it, just become that sound yourself. ..."
(The Art of Just Sitting, p 83)

That is, he gives the "becoming the sound" section as a preliminary method, not as equivalent to just sitting.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
That is shinjin as I understand it, it's not "enlightenment" ("getting the money") but it's also not "having buddha-nature" ("having a ticket") instead, it is simultaneously both and neither: it is having the winning ticket but not yet the money, which already has effects on you even though technically, you're still poor. This is figurative.

Astus wrote:
Good point. But I'd add that the buddha-nature teaching is not a mere potentiality, but when one has faith in it, it means that one has the conviction that one can actually attain unsurpassed enlightenment, and such a faith is taught to be a prerequisite in Zen for instance.

Yuren said:
We say that unsurpassed awakening [bodhi] has faith as its cause. 
The causes of awakening are innumerable, but if stated as faith, this covers everything
Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

Astus wrote:
I'd guess that the Nirvana Sutra doesn't mean faith in Amitabha, but rather faith in the sutra and/or buddha-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
1. only if realisation contains both at once.. however as I said before it does not come all at once
1.2 in Japan there is clear distinction between selfflessness of person and selflessness of object. Realising only no-self of the self itself is not complete yet. To realise both emptiness/selflessness of both one may call complete
2. What is difference in soto? Practice and enlightenment are one, not two.. it is sepcific for this teaching and also meaning of shikan taza..
2.1 So we may safely say that there is no method in zen...
2.2 Here instruction or method and realisation are not two... to understand it one has to follow realised master...

Astus wrote:
That is, you say:

Realisation doesn't contain both, and there are two stages. At the same time, practice is enlightenment and there is no method. To understand what all it is, one needs to follow a realised master.

Those are three contradictory statements. If there is no method, one cannot move even from unrealised to realised, much less from a lower realisation to a higher one. Following a realised master is meaningless, because there is nothing at all such a person can say or do, because there is no path at all, no method, nothing to teach or transmit. Even some magical version of handing over enlightenment is impossible, because that would still need a method to do it.

Matylda said:
Generally I just refuted claim that it is about concentration of which Roshi did not talk about

Astus wrote:
So, instead of taking the statement "becoming the sound" as a concentration method, what you propose is an impossibility.

- We both agree that shikantaza does not involve concentration.
- We both agree that shikantaza is practice-enlightenment.
- What we do not agree on is that the quote from Maezumi is an instruction for shikantaza.

As I see it, it cannot be, and one of the reasons is that in shikantaza there are no two stages of realising separately the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena, one has full realisation right from the beginning. It is also not the case that there is no method, since zazen can be described clearly and precisely, just as it's done on http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html, and even on the http://zen.rinnou.net/zazen/sitting.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Queequeg said:
First, the object of faith is different. In Pure Land the object of faith is Amida, and particularly his vow to draw everyone who calls on him to be reborn in Sukhavati. In Nichrien, its the Primordial Shakyamuni Buddha.

Astus wrote:
That's fairly evident.

Queequeg said:
The word "faith" is also a little different. For Nichiren, when he refers to faith 信 shin its from 信解 shinge or adhimukti, rather than derived from 信 shin as related to sraddha or prasada.

Astus wrote:
That means little unless there is a definition of those terms by Nichiren. First of all, regarding the term, it is how https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=124473#p124473, one should consider the Chinese first and the Sanskrit second, especially when a teacher like Nichiren probably has never encountered the Sanskrit version and could not understand any Sanskrit. As for how dedication (adhimukti) became faith-understanding, my guess is that - just as the term is explained in Chinese - one is dedicated when one aspires towards understanding with faith. So, in http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/ott/PART-1/4 (although it seems to be a disputed text), we can find an explanation in line with the above explanation:

Volume six of On “The Words and Phrases,” commenting on this, says, “Looking at the matter from the viewpoint of the Great Vehicle, we may say that the two words ‘belief’ and ‘understanding’ refer to the two paths [of insight and practice]. First one rids oneself of doubt, and therefore this is called belief. Then one proceeds to embark on [the path of practice], and this is called understanding. The term ‘belief’ applies to both paths, but the term ‘understanding’ applies only to the path of practice. Therefore the path of practice is termed ‘understanding.’”

Queequeg said:
My understanding is that its that point when the dharma first appears in the mind, but before there is any judgment about it - just appearance.

Astus wrote:
It seems to me you refer to some sort of unreflected experience. However, the problem there is is that while theoretically all appearances could be like that in their first instance, following that one integrates it into one's conceptual framework in order to be able to interact with it. In other words, such mindlessness is impractical and pointless. Furthermore, one always needs wisdom to see through appearances and comprehend both conceptually and experientially their emptiness.

Queequeg said:
In the sense that subject and object arise together, there is the implication that the subject IS the object, and so when we "approve" of an object, we are that object.

Astus wrote:
The subject cannot be the object, otherwise there is no distinction, consequently they do not arise at all.

Queequeg said:
The 16th Chapter goes on to the famous exposition of Shakyamuni's life span - dust motes of dust motes of aeons of aeons. In grokking the Buddha's life span, we are thereby instantly integrated with the Buddha's life span, ie. The Buddha. And that, as far as I can tell, is the Sudden Teaching of the Lotus Sutra. That is what is referenced in the formula Namu (I devote/venerate/worship/affirm/aspire to/accept/etc.) the Sublime Dharma of the Lotus Blossom Scripture.

Astus wrote:
What is a sudden teaching in saying that Shakyamuni has an eternal lifespan? How does that bring one to realise the suchness of one's own life?

Queequeg said:
The benefit of Adhimukti the Buddha's life span is then explained in the next chapter where the Buddha explains that if a person can adhimukti the Buddha's life span for a single instant, their benefit is greater than that of all the pre-Lotus bodhisattvas.

Astus wrote:
That's like saying that if one believes the Buddha, there will be great benefits. It's not the same as attaining enlightenment.

So, maybe I'm missing something in your explanation here, but I still don't see any difference in faith besides the object of faith.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: The Skandhas and the 8 Consciousness's
Content:
Astus wrote:
Since those are eight consciousnesses, isn't it quite logical that they belong to the aggregate that is actually called consciousness? Vasubandhu and Sthiramati says it is.

The complete explanation is given by Vasubandhu: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Analysis_of_the_Five_Skandhas, in English translation with Sthiramati's commentary published as https://books.google.com/books?id=xa0VBgAAQBAJ.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
Shinran's is sudden as well ... because his birth is already settled now, in the present.)

Astus wrote:
That is "sudden" only in the sense of an assured birth, not in any actual attainment or realisation, unlike in Zen and Tiantai where immediacy means actual enlightenment. As for having shinjin is equal to being a buddha, that is only figurative speech, in the same way that we could say all beings are buddhas because they have buddha-nature. And while talking like that may sound nice, it has no practical relevance besides boosting some people's morale.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Differences between nichiren and pureland
Content:
Yuren said:
I must admit I don't understand Nichiren. I think I understand Shinran

Astus wrote:
On one hand, it's the same for me. However, if I look at Queequeg's post:

Queequeg said:
NMRK is a sudden practice. The Sudden Teaching is the complete and immediate revelation of the Buddha's Mind. All those things said about the Buddha apply here - beyond words, beyond conception, indescribable, etc. etc. No one understands it when its revealed, even when they see it directly, except Buddhas. However, once you see it, even if you don't understand what you saw, you can't unsee it. NMRK is aspirational for those who want to see. Its affirmational for those who have caught a glimpse, as well as those fluently coursing in it.

Astus wrote:
it tells me that Nichiren taught a faith based method of recitation, just like Honen and Shinran, except that he claimed to teach something more than that, even though apparently he did not. That is, it is all "beyond words, beyond conception, indescribable", what is in other words: faith. There is neither calming nor insight in Nichiren's teaching, and even though ichinen sanzen seems to have a doctrinal relevance, it hasn't, because it explains nothing why repeating a text's title would make one a buddha in this life. All I have found so far are merely claims that in some mysterious way one's buddha-nature is recovered through repetition.

But, if there is something more to it, I hope that it will be clarified here.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
this is realisation of selflessness, or optiness of person or subject
one gives up all conditioning of the grasping self.. then you are the sound itself

Astus wrote:
He advises to be the sound, says nothing about realising that there is no self, rather it is the result of becoming the sound that one abandons the subjective viewer. As the quote says: "The "me" that perceives the sound becomes one with the sound, leaving only the sound itself. This is emptying yourself"

So, there is still nothing said about how one "becomes the sound", if that is not simply concentration.

Matylda said:
This is realisation of emptiness of object.. in deep realisation of selflessness you realise finally nature of all phenomena.

Astus wrote:
If with the realisation of no-self comes the realisation of the emptiness of object, then there is no point in differentiating the two.

Matylda said:
Then one attains complete enlightenment, not only selflessness of person..

Astus wrote:
Since with selflessness comes objectlessness, there can be no such thing as realising only no-self.

Matylda said:
Teachings of Shikan taza as it is popular in the West concerning sitting came in the XX century.. it was work of Sawaki Kodo..

Astus wrote:
There are other Soto teachers in the West besides the followers of Sawaki. Like the students of http://www.sfzc.org/, http://www.shastaabbey.org/index.html, http://wwzc.org/, http://www.nebraskazencenter.org/.

Matylda said:
unspecified manner - no, it is in samadhi of selflessness it is not unspecified

Astus wrote:
See above. If the samadhi of selflessness means realising the emptiness of objects, then there is no difference at all. Also, it has not been clarified what else is "becoming the sound" if not concentration. Realising selflessness is not a method but a result.

Matylda said:
shikan taza contains this 'double' realisation of selflessness of subject and object

Astus wrote:
Emptiness of self and phenomena is a general Mahayana doctrine, not a technique.

Matylda said:
Two stages are in postion of madhyamaka of Nagarjuna

Astus wrote:
Do you mean the two truths or the twofold emptiness? In any case, they are not methods.

Matylda said:
Dogen speaks about this kind of realisation

Astus wrote:
Maezumi says "become that sound yourself". It's not a realisation, it is an instruction to do it. Or do you think one can just do realisation? If yes, how?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
Definitely not...

Astus wrote:
Why not? What does it mean then?

Matylda said:
Anyway Roshi talks here about the realm of realisation, not about calmness of mind. ... He is using Hakuin's great death and Dogen's dropping body and mind as synonyms of enlightenment to explain the final result of unfolding enlightenment. ... And again he clearly says that it 'transcends' limited consciousness. Right?

Astus wrote:
He talks of two stages. First by "becoming the sound" one loses the self. Then, in some unspecified manner, one has to lose the object as well.

Does shikantaza have two stages? I have not heard of such a thing yet. And if there are no two stages in shikantaza, how could it be what is talked about here?

What is it to "become the sound"? Did Dogen teach such a thing? Or anyone else?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
Concentration is not zazen.

Astus wrote:
We agree on that.

Matylda said:
Anyway in English translation of Maezumi there is nothing about wilful concentration etc.

Astus wrote:
So how do you interpret this line?

"When you hear a sound, instead of remaining outside of it, and thereby fighting it, just become that sound yourself."

And then the second stage?

"But there still remains the dharma, the object. So next, empty that too! Again, by really being thus, you become unaware of even being thus."

What I read there is an instruction for concentration practice, not shikantaza.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
Yes.. please give me exact quote from Roshi's writting which you are referring to.

Astus wrote:
It was posted http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=349399#p349399 by makewhisper that I have commented to.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
No he did not teach in this sense wrong.. I related the passage to your comment, nothing else. You wanted me to write about misinterpretation, so it is what I did.

Astus wrote:
I see. And how does that differ from what is found in Maezumi's instructions? He seems to talk about concentration. What do you think it is actually about?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
Well it does not have anyting to do with concentration.

Astus wrote:
So you think that Maezumi is teaching something that's wrong and should not call it shikantaza?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
it is about possible misinterpretation, not about criticism...

Astus wrote:
Misinterpretation is possible even between close friends. But if you can read a different meaning in the quoted text, I'd be happy to read it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
I think you go simply too far.. why do not send questioner to qualified zen master? what is the point of giving answer with very limited insight, and alltogether it is just petty judgemnt of contemporary zen master teachings...
Is there no any restriction on the zen forum concerning how far we may go, without taking undeservedely position of zen teacher in this public space after all?

Astus wrote:
This is a forum, intended for discussions. The usual "go visit a teacher" advice has already been posted twice ( http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=347592#p347592, http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=348076#p348076 ), and makewhisper has already written of the plans to http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=348121#p348121.

If you think what I wrote is incorrect, please go on and correct it.

As for my comments on the quoted instructions, they are not criticisms of Maezumi at all. Or do you think it is inappropriate and unseemly to talk about teachings?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
makewhisper said:
"When you hear a sound, instead of remaining outside of it, and thereby fighting it, just become that sound yourself. Really being that sound yourself, that sound won't disturb you anymore. The "me" that perceives the sound becomes one with the sound, leaving only the sound itself. This is emptying yourself

Astus wrote:
What does it mean to be one with the sound? That there is no observing it, no judging it, no letting go of it, no perpetuating it, there is just the sound without any relation created with it. This is achieved through concentration, through wilful focus on a single object, until only that one thing is left and everything else is forgotten.

makewhisper said:
But there still remains the dharma, the object. So next, empty that too! Again, by really being thus, you become unaware of even being thus.

Astus wrote:
This is the shift from maintaining the object of concentration to simply maintaining the concentration, the state of mind. It could be said that here one moves from rupa-dhyana to arupa-dhyana.

makewhisper said:
This is a state of samadhi:  both person and dharma are empty; subject and object are empty. This is called the great death. In describing the great death, Dogen Zenjui says, 'body and mind drop away.' When body and mind spontaneously drop away, you transcend the bondage of limited consciousness.

Astus wrote:
I think those are too big words. What was described was a temporary experience of calmness.

makewhisper said:
This passage stuck out to me because I often have a song stuck in my head when I'm practicing, and it persists even when I become aware of it in a way that random thoughts do not. The song just repeats itself interminably, and I've been ill-advisedly trying to fight that.

Astus wrote:
Do you want to get rid of breathing? Your hands? Your belly? Your back? There are so many things we could say they persist.

makewhisper said:
Hakuyu's writing suggests to me that I could "empty myself" by simply becoming the song or the thought or whatever dharma I'm objectifying in the moment.

Astus wrote:
Why not give it a try and see what happens?

makewhisper said:
I think I worried that such an approach would not be shikantaza, practice-realization, because it seems akin to taking an object of meditation.

Astus wrote:
There is nothing wrong with practising concentration. It is a sound method that helps one to relax and put aside ideation, although at the same time one can go wrong with becoming too tense from trying to maintain a specific state. As for just sitting, it is a very simple thing, and all it needs is the understanding that no matter what thought or other phenomenon occur, they necessarily and inevitably pass away, hence there is no need to do anything about it.

makewhisper said:
But what I get from Hakuyu's work is that mind and body dropping off is "spontaneous" or "automatic" and intrinsically not the result of effort.

Astus wrote:
When one is focused on one thing, everything else is left on its own, so they just come and go. They can come and go because they are left on their own. For instance, when one concentrates on the breath, it is only breathing that matters. Then one should eventually recognise that there is no effort in breathing, it happens anyway. And if one cares to look into what breathing is, it turns out that it is nothing in particular that one can grasp as breath, it is merely a concept.

makewhisper said:
So it makes no sense to make an effort at practice-realization of emptiness/buddha-nature. He seems to suggest that the emptying of the object is a spontaneous experience equivalent to the "great death" whereas the emptying of the subject can be accomplished with some practical application.

Astus wrote:
There is the wrong attitude to just wait for some realisation to happen. It won't. Furthermore, shikantaza is the realisation, because it is seeing clearly, as first hand experience, that there is nothing to grasp, nothing to identify with, nothing to attain, and no one to attain it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 4:26 PM
Title: Re: Kensho and "stages of enlightenment"
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So, people either totally get it, or they totally don't. No shades of grey?

Astus wrote:
On the gradual path of the bodhisattva, before the first bhumi there is only a conceptual view of emptiness, but it can and should be a correct view. From the first stage on it is a working, experiential insight into emptiness, i.e. prajnaparamita, but with varying degrees of application. Buddhahood is the completion not only of wisdom but also the qualities necessary for the all around use of skillful means. That is one generic description of the steps, however, one can find various interpretations. Using the stages model is one way to describe the path and set up the common sequence of things to learn. The drawback is to interpret it as a fixed order of things. Eventually, as we can see, it turned into a merely theoretical doctrine with no real use, I guess because it was a fitting teaching in India at one point, but not for later generations.

As for Zen, it is possible to find some descriptions of stages of insight, especially in the sudden enlightenment gradual cultivation model, but even there it is not about a clear set of stages to go through. We could also say that people go through the three stages of approaching, recognising, and cultivating, but all three are about the same thing. It might also be noted here that the bodhisattva path is like that as well, but because that had become a venerated teaching, people moved away from it to remain in touch with the practical application and to avoid complications.

As for totally getting it or not, it is a fairly simple matter.

"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 30)

In other words, to be attached to the five aggregates is painful and unsatisfying. To not be attached is calm and peaceful. That is what has been stated from the very beginning in the four noble truths. As for the path, the emphatic point in Zen is to go directly to recognising suchness, and it's not about studying and cultivating other things to prepare one for such an insight. That's how stages are irrelevant, and that's what makes it a sudden method.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: How to drop effort
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
How do you drop effort, without producing more effort?

Astus wrote:
Effort is wanting to reach a goal. Effortlessness - that is ultimately one of the doors of liberation: apranihita - is attained by recognising that there is nothing to attain. That recognition is the realisation of emptiness, so, in order to be free from effort one has to gain insight. It can be done with practises like contemplating how the past thought is no more, the future thought is not yet, and the present thought does not abide. Therefore it is actually impossible to grasp a thought or aspire for anything, and that is seeing the natural perfection.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Kensho and "stages of enlightenment"
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
I've heard some people say that the bodhiattvayana encompasses the sravakayana (including progression through the stages of enlightenment as taught in the nikayas), but because of the different aspiration does not become an arahant. Is this a misunderstanding? Or perhaps reflective of some schools and not others?

Astus wrote:
It encompasses it in the sense that a bodhisattva becomes free of emotional afflictions by the 8th bhumi, at attains the level equal to an arhat. But that's a comparison relevant only from a certain perspective.

Lazy_eye said:
Soto would be the sudden enlightenment view, correct? And Rinzai the gradualist?

Astus wrote:
Every Zen school claims to teach sudden enlightenment, as they all nominally descend from Huineng. Calling Hakuin's version of Rinzai gradualist is somewhat of a criticism.

Lazy_eye said:
If so, that would explain why Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance, is able to accommodate the Pali Canon to the degree that he does.

Astus wrote:
TNH is not a Japanese Rinzai teacher, so there is no connection either.

Lazy_eye said:
That was my impression -- sort of what I was trying to get at in the OP.

Astus wrote:
If we allow a little flexibility, it can be clear that all forms of Buddhism aims for freedom from grasping at appearances. That's what one learns in Theravada, in Mahayana, in Zen, and even in Vajrayana. There are differences in certain methods and doctrines of course.

Lazy_eye said:
I'm not aware of this being the case regrading the bhumis, at least in East Asian traditions such as Zen or Pure Land -- but again this may simply reflect my ignorance. Do practitioners here think about the bhumis and see them as concrete goals in practice?

Astus wrote:
The whole bhumis system is irrelevant and unused, and has been like that for a long time. Zen is not a gradual path, so setting up grades is contrary to it. Pure Land aims for reaching enlightenment only in the next life, so there is no point thinking about matters that are only confusing for ordinary deluded beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
makewhisper said:
One thing I don't understand is the role of "conscious endeavor" in all of this. Should I strive to be aware of my thoughts and sensations and perceptions? That is, should I focus my awareness on my these dharmas when the thought to do so occurs?

Astus wrote:
On the gradual path endeavour is important, it is the fourth paramita. On the sudden path there is no effort involved. Thoughts, and all experiences, are events that one is necessarily aware of. Then why add awareness on top of awareness? Whatever appears is a conscious appearance, otherwise it does not exist as an appearance.

makewhisper said:
I recently read Dogen's "Zazengi: Rules for Zazen" in The Art of Just Sitting, and he says: "Zazen . . . is not conscious endeavor."

Astus wrote:
One important thing to learn when dealing with Buddhism is that one is reading a translation. So, while Kazuaki's version (Treasury of the True Dharma Eye) of Zazengi says:

"Zazen is not thinking of good, not thinking of bad. It is not conscious endeavor. It is not introspection. Do not desire to become a buddha. Let sitting of lying down drop away."

Look at the others:

http://antaiji.org/en/classics/zazengi/:

"Do not think of good, do not think of evil. Zazen has nothing to do with the function of intellect, volition, or consciousness, nor with memory, imagination, or contemplation. Do not seek to become a buddha. Be free from the discrimination of sitting and lying down."

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.translation.html:

"Good is not thought of; evil is not thought of. It is not mind, intellect or consciousness; it is not thoughts, ideas or perceptions. Do not figure to make a buddha; slough off sitting or reclining."

http://www.shastaabbey.org/pdf/shobo/056zazng.pdf:

"Do not think about what is good or what is bad. Do not exercise your discriminatory mind or weigh and judge your mind’s remembrances, concepts, and reflections! Do not aim at becoming a Buddha, and drop off any concern with whether you are sitting or lying down."

http://wwzc.org/dharma-text/zazengi-how-sit:

"Don't think of good. Don't think of bad. It is not a matter of mind, intention, or consciousness; it is not a matter of thoughts, ideas, or perceptions. Zazen is not self-consciousness or self-contemplation. Don't sit to become a Buddha. Release ideas of sitting and lying down."

So, what becomes clear here, and what reflects on the way Kazuaki's translations are done, is that where it says "It is not conscious endeavor. It is not introspection." is a simplification and reinterpretation of "It is not mind, intellect or consciousness; it is not thoughts, ideas or perceptions." that is actually in the original: 心意識にあらず、念想觀にあらず。

makewhisper said:
I'm having trouble reconciling the idea of bringing awareness to thoughts---"When thought arises, be aware of it" (do this when that happens)---with the idea of foregoing "conscious endeavor." I've probably misunderstood what Dogen meant by "conscious endeavor." Maybe he's making the claim that zazen is not conscious endeavor---there is no striving---because it's "confirming that all things . . . are such" as you put it.

Astus wrote:
This is a matter of what and how you practice. Don't forget the first part of https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html, where he points to the original perfection and the necessity of practice being equally important. Although it is popular to interpret it in the extreme way of "must sit", the point is rather that it is not enough to understand original enlightenment, one has to embody it, and zazen is embodying buddhahood. It should also be added here that zazen is simply the easy and simple method to realise buddhahood, but enlightenment is not limited to sitting.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Kensho and "stages of enlightenment"
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
I'm wondering if the Zen understanding of enlightenment

Astus wrote:
There are quite a few versions out there. Which one do you mean, whose interpretation?

Lazy_eye said:
can be mapped loosely onto the "four stages of enlightenment"

Astus wrote:
If we are OK to disregard the whole distinction between sravakayana and bodhisattvayana.

Lazy_eye said:
I know Zen has an initial enlightenment (kensho) and then ultimately full enlightenment (satori).

Astus wrote:
That is an idea coming from Japanese Rinzai. Soto Zen does not subscribe to it. As for Korean and Chinese teachings, it's possible to find similarities with such a gradualist view.

Lazy_eye said:
Do these two paradigms match up, sort of?

Astus wrote:
Kensho - stream entry. Satori - arhat.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 6:51 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
makewhisper said:
What I find is that thoughts come without my control, they run their course without my control, so I avoid trying to control them. When thoughts come, they crowd out awareness of thoughts.

Astus wrote:
If thoughts move without your control, how could you ever do anything about them? If you think there is awareness separate from thoughts, isn't that just another thought? Sometimes there are thoughts, sometimes there are no thoughts. To favour one or the other is falling into the extremes of existence and annihilation. That's why the practice is neither-thinking / no-thought - if a thought comes, OK; if no thought comes, OK.

makewhisper said:
However, I find that when I become aware that they're there, the thoughts usually stop. I think before I was engaging in thought-stopping where I'd see a thought and then actively seek to diminish it.

Astus wrote:
Do you know the Tenpuku version of the Fukanzazengi? It says instead of the "think of not thinking" part: "When thought
arises, be aware of it. When you are aware of it, it will disappear. Put aside everything outside continuously, and make yourself into one piece." That is from the instructions of Changlu Zongze, but this phrasing and calling it the essential art of zazen goes back even further to Guifeng Zongmi. It is the simple observation of you have discovered for yourself as well, that once one becomes conscious of one's thoughts, one does not continue to think about it. It is similar to the fourth method given in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html, if one interprets it as the method to calm thoughts.

makewhisper said:
But I've found that reminding myself that I'm not in control is useful.

Astus wrote:
That is somewhat like meditating on the theme of no-self. But again, that's not exactly practice-awakening.

makewhisper said:
And when I'm aware of the thoughts, there is awareness. But I believe I'm attached to that awareness. When I'm aware of awareness, there's usually a shift in my visual perception that lasts for a few seconds before my eyes move on their own and bring distraction. Perhaps it's a mistake to strive after awareness, to cling to awareness, if dropped-off body and mind is the realization of shikantaza as practice-enlightenment.

Astus wrote:
There are the ideas to do something and not to do something. It is of course quite normal, but then one should be clear about how to do that properly, and that means learning the Dharma. If you want to go with the ideal form of zazen, there is nothing to do at all, no state to accomplish, and no experience to get rid of. As you sit you have to immediately recognise that all the six types of appearances are such, there is nothing to improve or decrease, and there is no one to do or know anything either.

makewhisper said:
As for the movement of hands and such, I've gotten better at remaining still. I guess if just sitting is just sitting then moving one's hands is ill-advised.

Astus wrote:
Just sitting does not mean sitting still. It means not conceptualising sitting. You cannot sit still anyway, unless you're a corpse.

makewhisper said:
I guess in the instant that you move your hands there's an awareness of movement that is just another empty phenomenon appearing and then passing away, something the deluded mind grasps after.

Astus wrote:
That is lot of worrying.

makewhisper said:
While just sitting, the practice-enlightenment of dropped-off mind, is sudden---the result of nothing---and ungraspable?

Astus wrote:
Such Zen terminology can be misleading. Try to translate it to ordinary English.

makewhisper said:
But how does this inform practice?

Astus wrote:
The practice is the experience confirming that all things (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily feelings, thoughts) are such, that is, they appear and disappear on their own. There is no one controlling or perceiving them, as they are all dependently originated ephemeral, illusory instances of experience. That is why there is nothing at all that can be grasped, as attachment itself is a conceptual fabrication of a subject grasping an object, while if you actually look at the experience itself there are no subjects nor objects.

makewhisper said:
Is it just a matter of sitting down and taking the posture with faith in the Buddha mind, and in doing so, hopefully relinquishing the delusion that we can control both the realization of the Buddha mind (through practice) and the conditions of samsaric existence?

Astus wrote:
That is practising with the aim of awakening, not practice-enlightenment. Plus it is the wrong attitude to practice itself, where one merely hopes for some realisation without actually realising anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
Matylda said:
Originally there was only one 'version' - dropping of body and mind... all other are made up things... specially in the XIX and XX century..

Astus wrote:
Dogen seems to have accepted following the breath as a method ( http://shoresofzen.com/index_htm_files/KeizanAndDogenonBreathMeditation.pdf ), while Keizan gave various instructions for different obstacles in the Zazen Yojinki. Although it is debatable whether they can be called shikantaza.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts and impulses
Content:
makewhisper said:
Hi there, I have three questions concerning the practice of shikantaza.

Astus wrote:
Shikantaza has a couple of versions. There are those who teach it as a body-centred practice, where the posture is the most important. There are those who teach it as a concentration practice where one focuses on the breath and the abdomen. There are those who teach it as practice-enlightenment where there is neither grasping nor releasing of appearances. And there are likely a dozen other forms as well.

So, when you say "the practice of shikantaza", what do you mean?

makewhisper said:
1) When thoughts enter the mind, is the best practice to become aware/mindful of "thinking" at the next possible moment?

Astus wrote:
If you focus on the body/breath, keep your attention there. If your practice is enlightenment, you have nothing to do with thoughts, they leave on their own anyway.

There is actually a simple logic at work here. If you concentrate on breath/body, you don't meddle with thoughts and other sensory inputs, but let them come and go. If you are stable in your recognition that there is nothing to grasp, you have left behind the intention to fixate on anything, in other words, dropped body and mind.

makewhisper said:
2) What should I make of impulses to, for example, move my hands or shift my body during zazen? What's the best method for overcoming the dichotomy between resisting an impulse and indulging in an impulse? Is it a problem if I move my hands? Or is it merely a problem if I do so without awareness?

Astus wrote:
Those are things you should experiment with. Then you will see the changes in your body and mind as they happen. As long as you uphold an idea of what and how shikantaza should happen, everything else is a disturbance. That is, to consider any specific state of body and mind as the proper method is grasping at body and mind.

makewhisper said:
3) Does "just sitting" encompass other actions such as moving one's hands with awareness?

Astus wrote:
If you just sit you just sit. What does that have to do with awareness? Of course, if you think it is a sort of mindfulness you cultivate, then moving one's hands are OK in mindfulness, and not moving one's hands without mindfulness is not OK. But is that just sitting?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: karma in india before buddhism vs in buddhism
Content:
dreambow said:
All the scriptures in the world, before Buddhism, after Buddhism will not penetrate the great mystery. Karma is deeply multi layered, intent verses action, subtle, inscrutable, imponderable.  All the concepts we ramble on about will not penetrate the workings of karma. Its like a knot within a tangle  within a knot and we must simply say we  know not.

Astus wrote:
That's unnecessary mystification, not scholarship or study.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 19th, 2016 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: karma in india before buddhism vs in buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Johannes Bronkhorst: https://books.google.com/books?id=fjU6AwAAQBAJ, https://books.google.com/books?id=4GNG5KuH73QC
Richard Francis Gombrich: https://books.google.com/books?id=YMIlAQAAMAAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 18th, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
To clarify (again) I think he was suggesting that all that was needed was already within the Pali Canon and to move that far away from it, the point of petitioning deities etc was tantamount to justifying the question "was still 'Buddhism'."?

Astus wrote:
Here's a traditional response:

The Pali Canon explains how to become an arhat, but does not tell you how to become a buddha. Therefore it does not contain everything one needs if one wants to attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.

From another perspective:

Mahayana is how Buddhism developed in Northern India and in other countries. It provides an extensive record of answering personal and cultural needs of people over two thousand years and various cultures, implementing and transmitting the Buddha's message again and again. Compared to that, relying only on the Pali canon means limited resources of only a few hundred years. So, even if one says that only the suttas can be the authentic teachings for historical reasons, the Mahayana is on the same level in reliability as the Abhidhamma and the commentaries of Theravada.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 17th, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: No Difference in Results?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Accordingly, although these two vehicles are the same in that they both result in the attainment of buddhahood, they are different in the understanding or lack of understanding present in the methods for attaining it."
( Jigme Lingpa: Treasury of Precious Qualities, vol 2, p 88)

"Concerning [the seventh distinction of the mantras], through their levels: In the dialectics [the levels] are held to number eleven by differentiating the successive renunciations and antidotes. The mantras, however are superior because [they progress] to the twelfth level of the Unattached Lotus Endowed (ma-chags padma-can), the thirteenth level of the Holder of Indestructible Reality (rdo-rje 'dzin-pa) and so on."
( Dudjom Rinpoche: The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism, p 254)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 17th, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Matylda said:
almost to the XX century there were no mutual contacts between theravada, zen, tibetan vajrayana etc. Therefore after long ages of very authonomus development of each tradition, often in one country, the new meeting was sort of surprise for each party involved.

Astus wrote:
That's not exactly true. Chinese and Tibetans lived in the same empire for a very long time, just like they do now, and during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) Tibetan Buddhism was actually the state religion. In South-East Asia, similarly to India, Mahayana and Vajrayana were dominant forms of Buddhism until the 13th century. It should also not be forgotten that the whole area was a neighbour of the Chinese Empire, and Vietnam has both a Mahayana and a Theravada tradition in the same country.

Matylda said:
Anyway it is best to keep to ones own tradition without attempt to make judgments of what is and what is not 'true' buddhism. It will only involve mundane thinking and operating of worldly dharmas in minds of practitioners. Finally it may end up in sectarianism. This is in my opinion truly non dharmic activity.

Astus wrote:
Mahayana defines itself by rendering a set of teachings into a lower position. The Abhidhamma Pitaka of the Pali Canon has the book Kathavatthu discussing numerous controversial points to define what is orthodox and what is not. Critical assessments and debates cannot and should not be avoided. The problem occurs when it turns into a personal and emotional matter, and that makes it a fine test for one's Dharma practice.

Matylda said:
common language which they use to communicate is mostly.. English.. so basically non dharmic language

Astus wrote:
The only language that might be called Dharmic is the Pali, as it is used only in Buddhist literature, while all the other languages exist as natural ways of communication.

Matylda said:
there are many mutual misinterpretations between traditions based simply on non dharmic, dualistic language, lacking any proper dharma terms

Astus wrote:
All languages are dualistic. Terminology is simply a matter of an agreed upon glossary.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 17th, 2016 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Justmeagain said:
I can see his point, can't you?

Astus wrote:
And what is that point?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 16th, 2016 at 6:59 PM
Title: Re: Japanese monk's vestments
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Between 148 and 170 CE, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which described the color of monastic robes (Skt. kāṣāya) utilized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (Chinese: 大比丘三千威儀).[6] Another text translated at a later date, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information. However, the colors for Dharmaguptaka and Sarvāstivāda are reversed. In the earlier source, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing deep red robes, while the Dharmaguptaka are described as wearing black robes. The corresponding passage found in the later Śāriputraparipṛcchā, in contrast, portrays the Sarvāstivāda as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptaka as wearing deep red robes.

During the Tang dynasty, Chinese Buddhist monastics typically wore grayish-black robes and were even colloquially referred to as Zīyī (Chinese: 緇衣), "those of the black robes." However, the Song dynasty monk Zanning (919–1001 CE) writes that during the earlier Han-Wei period, the Chinese monks typically wore red robes.

According to the Dharmaguptaka vinaya, the robes of monastics should be sewn out of no more than 18 pieces of cloth, and the cloth should be fairly heavy and coarse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaguptaka#Robes

"Perhaps the most visible sign of this monastic distinction was the monk's clothing. Indeed, a common term for monks in medieval texts is the "black-robed ones" (ziyi). And when referring to monks and laymen, Buddhist texts commonly use the expression, "the black and the white" (zibai). Following this line of inquiry it would be possible to write a detailed study of the relationship between Indian styles of monastic clothing and indigenous Chinese fashion. But more than in the cases of sex or food, clothing provides us a glimpse into the ways in which monks distinguished among themselves, quickly dispelling the picture of a uniform clergy that is painted in secular sources. This is the aspect of the monastic uniform that I focus on below.
As the term "black-robed ones" indicates, Chinese monks often wore black robes, but other colors were also worn. In his Brief History of the Clergy, Zanning includes a section on monastic garb in which he relates that during the Han-Wei period, most monks in China wore red robes. An expert in the Vinaya, Zanning further notes that the color of a monk's robes depended in India on the school to which he belonged. Pitch black (zao) for members of the Sarvastivadins, deep red (jiang) for the Dharmaguptakas, blue (qing) for the Mahasamghikas, and so forth. After citing examples from the Biographies of Chinese monks who wore robes of various colors, Zanning goes on to describe the variety found in his day, that is, the late tenth century. At that time, a given color of robe was associated with a particular region: deep-black (hei) or red in the Jiangnan region, brown (he) in the area around the capital at Kaifeng, and so forth. Though some difference between the Chinese monk's robe and its Indian counterpart was tolerated, there were limits to the degree of innovation allowed. Zanning is critical of the practice of wearing deep-black robes, and even more so of monks who had in his day taken to wearing white robes. The wearing of either color, he insists, is forbidden in the Vinaya."
(John Kieschnick: The Eminent Monk, p 29)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 15th, 2016 at 6:46 PM
Title: Re: Does all Zen teach the One-Mind?
Content:
White Lotus said:
a buddhist approach may be... throw away the key in order to unlock the door of enlightenment. if we rely on words, concepts and names we cannot experience emptiness (or as a christian may put it: God ). if we call emptiness Mind then we have already reified something, the same applies to the word Self. even use of the word emptiness is not a direct experience of emptiness and can be misleading.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means simply that all the experiences of the six areas - whatever is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched, thought - are without an abiding, independent nature, that phenomena are not something that one can identify with, call a self. It is not some sort of transcendent experience or realm, and such an interpretation is a mistake. Therefore ideas about God are just ideas, and there is no place for it in Buddhism. Enlightenment is awakening to the lack of any substance in appearances and of any substratum beyond them. When there is no essence imagined, then there is no basis for grasping at or abiding in anything, and without grasping or abiding there is no dissatisfaction and delusion. To conceive emptiness, the absence of substance, as a distinct reality, is just another form of self-identity.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 15th, 2016 at 4:25 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Tao said:
Maybe it is not of interest, but I found this in the Wanderling website, can anyone confirm the data?

Astus wrote:
Yes. there are several collections of Zen ancestors from the Song and Ming eras. Similarly, there are compilations of stories of birth in the Pure Land.

In English translation:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=QPn_8kKS3SAC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=TrYKAAAAYAAJ
And there are quite a few separate works dedicated to individual teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Zen Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The practical response:

Zazen is the practise of awakening to the reality that all experiences of the six sensory areas are without anything that can be grasped. It is not about scriptures, teachings, methods, or traditions; and at the same time it includes all of that and accomplishes the Buddha's enlightenment.

The historical response:

It is only natural that a Theravadin sees Mahayana as unorthodox and inauthentic. It comes from not comprehending its meaning nor its historical evolution.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 5:19 PM
Title: Re: Does all Zen teach the One-Mind?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The three worlds of samsara arise and return [as] the one mind. Buddhas of past and future transmit the mind by mind not relying on words and letters."
( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/zh-cn/X63n1218_001#0002a24 )

"All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha. The Great Master Bodhidharma came from India to China, and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used the Lankavatara Sutra to seal the sentient beings' mind-ground. Therefore, in the Lankavatara Sutra, mind is the essence of all the Buddha's teachings, no gate is the Dharma-gate."
(Mazu Daoyi, in Sun-Face Buddha, p 62)

The teaching of one mind has become a central doctrine in East Asian Buddhism because of the treatise http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html. Following that work Wonhyo explained it extensively, so did Guifeng Zongmi and Yongming Yanshou in their treatises, who were studied and regularly quoted by Bojo Jinul.

"This one mind is not born with the physical body, nor does it die with the demise of the body. Though it can’t be seen, it operates through the whole body, seeing with the eyes, hearing with the ears, smelling with the nose, speaking with the mouth and propelling the hands and legs. There isn’t any place where it doesn’t function. Seeking the Buddha and Dharma outside of this mind is called the delusion of ordinary people. A buddha is one who understands that this very body is Buddha. That’s why nobody will attain Buddhahood who doesn’t realize her own mind."
(Bassui: To the Abbess of Jinryoji Temple, in Mud and Water, p 190)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 4:33 PM
Title: Re: Does all Zen teach the One-Mind?
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
So then "One Mind" doesn't mean that we all share one mind? I didn't think so. I was thinking it meant like that we all share the same type of mind, or same essential nature, i.e. that it meant simply we all have/are Buddha Nature.  But I encountered a guy in some amazon review of a book who seemed to be arguing that "One Mind" means something like we all share the same mind or self, and it sounded to me like he was arguing for the type of concept in the Upanishads with the concept of everyone being Brahman, except replacing Brahman with Buddha. And that's why I was wandering how wide-spread the concept is.

Astus wrote:
That kind of self/soul/substance based interpretation is clearly off the mark. One mind is the dharmadhatu, the single realm of experience. Being deluded about the one mind means positing subject and object, imagining that there are isolated, substantial elements independent of each other; in other words, grasping at phenomena. Awakening to the one mind is to realise that the concepts of stand alone entities, of self, are merely ideations. That's why misunderstanding the one mind as some universal and eternal entity is a wrong view.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Malcolm said:
In any case, the only way one can confirm whether what I am saying is true or not (it is true, according the texts), is to actually discover what Dzogchen is. That discovery will never happen on an internet forum.

Astus wrote:
Same could be said about the Pure Land path. Looks like there are more similarities than one would expect.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, but your error is claiming that both are faith-based. One is, the other is not.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that with Dzogchen you necessarily gain the divine eye and can perceive other practitioners attaining buddhahood in the intermediate state and in buddha-lands?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, of course you don't see any difference between Dzogchen and Pure Land because you do not know Dzogchen and thus do not understand its path. That can be remedied.

Astus wrote:
I didn't say their paths are the same, but their promises of success are very close.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Malcolm said:
If you believe that, then practice Pure Land. If you don't, practice something else.

Astus wrote:
I don't see much difference between the Dzogchen and the Pure Land version. And that difference is the very small percentage of superior practitioners who achieve buddhahood in this life, while the rest are beyond normal human perception, just like the Pure Land itself. Apparently both have a faith based 100% success rate.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016 at 6:49 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Malcolm said:
No problem. There are 21 capacities of Dzogchen practitioners divided into best, medium and average. The best achieve buddhahood in this life. The next 19 achieve buddhahood in the bardo. The last, the average of the average, achieve buddhahood in a nirmanakāya buddhafield without ever returning to samsara.

Anders said:
On that note, I guess we can also say:
Pure Land: 100%

Astus wrote:
Here is a classic on the question on the success rate from the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html:

59. Then the wandering ascetic Subhadda approached the Blessed One and saluted him courteously. And having exchanged with him pleasant and civil greetings, the wandering ascetic Subhadda seated himself at one side and addressed the Blessed One, saying: "There are, Venerable Gotama, ascetics and brahmans who are heads of great companies of disciples, who have large retinues, who are leaders of schools, well known and renowned, and held in high esteem by the multitude, such teachers as Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambali, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, Nigantha Nataputta. Have all of these attained realization, as each of them would have it believed, or has none of them, or is it that some have attained realization and others not?"

60. "Enough, Subhadda! Let it be as it may, whether all of them have attained realization, as each of them would have it believed, or whether none of them has, or whether some have attained realization and others not. I will teach you the Dhamma, Subhadda; listen and heed it well, and I will speak."

"So be it, Lord."

61. And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.

And in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.095.than.html:

Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding, will all the cosmos be led [to release], or a half of it, or a third?

...

Uttiya, suppose that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong ramparts, strong walls & arches, and a single gate. In it would be a wise, competent, & knowledgeable gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in those he did. Patrolling the path around the city, he wouldn't see a crack or an opening in the walls big enough for even a cat to slip through. Although he wouldn't know that 'So-and-so many creatures enter or leave the city,' he would know this: 'Whatever large creatures enter or leave the city all enter or leave it through this gate.'

In the same way, the Tathagata isn't concerned with whether all the cosmos or half of it or a third of it will be led to release by means of that [Dhamma]. But he does know this: 'All those who have been led, are being led, or will be led [to release] from the cosmos have done so, are doing so, or will do so after having abandoned the five hindrances — those defilements of awareness that weaken discernment — having well-established their minds in the four frames of reference, and having developed, as they have come to be, the seven factors for Awakening.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I once read there is a quotation from the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra translated as 'even though I have realised the supreme ultimate truth I have gained nothing thereby'. But whenever I searched for it I was unable to locate the source.  Would you be able to cast any light?

Astus wrote:
Subhūti said to the Buddha: “World-honored One. When the buddhas attain peerless perfect enlightenment, is it the case that actually nothing is attained?”
“Exactly right. Subhūti, as far as peerless perfect enlightenment is concerned, I have not attained the slightest thing. This is why it is called peerless perfect enlightenment.”
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 22)

"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."
(ch 3)

See the whole of ch 9.

"World-honored One, when the Tathāgata studied under Dīpaṃkara Buddha, there was, in reality, nothing that he attained in the dharma."
(ch 10)

This teaching of "nothing to be attained" is in many sutras, even in the http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartv12.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment success rate
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Of the thousand or ten thousand people in this school, only three or five [have really understood Buddhism]."
(Huangbo: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 42)

"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."
(Huineng: Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 30)

"The view that practice and realization are not one is skewed outside of the Way. In the Buddha Dharma practice and realization are one and the same. This is the practise of realization, and so from the beginning practice is the whole body of original Awakening. And so the instructions are to not to seek Awakening outside of the practice because the practice itself points directly to original Awakening."
(Dogen: http://wwzc.org/sites/default/files/Bendowa-book.pdf )

"if a person retaining the concept of there being anything to be gained generates the bodhi resolve and then proceeds to cultivate kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, giving, moral virtue, patience, vigor, dhyāna absorption, and wisdom, doing so for an incalculable number of asaṃkhyeyas of kalpas, one should realize that, on account of retaining the concept of something to be gained, such a person will not succeed in leaving behind birth and death and will not succeed in progressing towards bodhi."
(Vasubandhu: http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/V-Bcitta_excerpts/VBcitta_X-21_X-10.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 10th, 2016 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Mahanayan canon?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Currently the most popular edition of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_canon is the http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT/index_en.html. Here is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka to give you a basic outline, and here is a http://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/Map-of-the-Taisho.pdf. https://web.archive.org/web/20160328122520/http://fodian.net/world/ provides translations following the Taisho categories, while http://mbingenheimer.net/tools/bibls/transbibl.html is a bibliography of translations.

The major edition of the previous Qing era is the http://www.suttaworld.org/Collection_of_Buddhist/Chiarnlurng_Tripitaka/menu/index.htm, completed in 1738. Its structure is different from the Taisho, has the three main sections of Sutra, Vinaya, and Shastra, where the Sutra section sets up the order as Prajna section, Ratnakuta section, Mahasamnipata section, Avatamsaka section, Nirvana section, Five great foreign translations section, Mahayana single translations section, Agama section, Hinayana single translations section, All sorts of Song, Yuan, Tibetan scriptures section.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 9th, 2016 at 5:19 PM
Title: Re: Does all Zen teach the One-Mind?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Huanbo teaches No Mind as much as One Mind. They mean the same. It should also be clear that 'one' means non-dual, and non-dual means without like and dislike, without existence and non-existence, it is simply the wisdom of emptiness, what has always been the Buddha's and patriarchs' essential message.

"The important thing is to learn the Truth; for without learning that there is really no holy, no pure, no dirty, no big, no small, etc., but only emptiness and non-action and that this alone is ONE MIND and that, always, any adornment is only an expedient to learn the truth, one only clings to illusion."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 7th, 2016 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Astus wrote:
"the real answer lies in the push factor in the east. People do not decide on emigration simply based on higher relative wages elsewhere. Mostly it is a lack of prospects in the domestic economy that drives them away. "

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/07/solution-brexit-lies-eastern-europe/


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
undefineable said:
It seems that Buddhist teachers deny something over and above the rebirth of an 'underlying entity' called consciousness (and defined as the mental impression of an external or internal object in relation to a subject), yet stop short of denying rebirth altogether.

Astus wrote:
Beings have both bodies and minds. With rebirth the mind takes a new body. It is this simple. When the body and the mind are analysed, one can find that there is nothing substantial anywhere, and when that is realised, there is no more identification, then there is no more rebirth. But as long as there is identification, there is rebirth, and there is a mind to attain a body again and again.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2016 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
Its not as simple as that. There are clearly two minds. In Pali you have nama and citta and it seems to me nama is physical and citta is non-physical.  Bodhidharma says (Red Pine's translation, page 21) "But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It's not the same as the sensual mind."

If there is a material/sensual mind and an immaterial/subtle mind, which of the two is reborn? Its obvious. And which is part of the aggregates? The other one. So one mind is not part of the agggregates of which it is said "these are non-self."

Astus wrote:
There are the aggregates with grasping - that is the sensual mind. And there are the aggregates without grasping - that is the subtle mind. It's not about two minds existing at the same time, it'd be neither sensible nor practical to posit a second head. Rather, one has to see the nature of this present mind, and recognise that it is originally pure.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 3rd, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rebirth is as illusory and unfounded as this present body and mind. If we try to find what is there to be born again and again, we can only realise that there is no such entity. Similarly, there is no entity passing on from one moment to the next. That's how the true nature of birth is no birth, and of death is no death. When it becomes clear that there is neither birth nor death, it is also obvious how the illusion of existence occurs: by identification with concepts and feelings. Then it is only natural that there is running up and down all over the six realms.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 2nd, 2016 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
The 'self-view' he doesn't want us to have is a dogma of the self's origin (is it eternal, is it created). He never says we don't exist. He also never says we are only the aggregstes, but the exact opposite: the aggregates are not the self.

Astus wrote:
The http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Sakkaya-ditthi means any of the views that posit a self that identical with the aggregates, that is contained in the aggregates, that is independent of the aggregates, or that owns the aggregates. In other words, there is not any kind of self possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2016 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Padmasambhava in Translation
Content:
Malcolm said:
from this perspective, he is saying his teachings are superior to translations.

Astus wrote:
But I assume hardly anyone today would think that a Westerner's similar statement would amount to anything serious. And if there were a group of students who followed such a living buddha, they'd be considered unorthodox and cult-like.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Astus wrote:
"By the same token, it seems unlikely that those in these regions (or Cornwall or other economically peripheral spaces) would feel ‘grateful’ to the EU for subsidies. Knowing that your business, farm, family or region is dependent on the beneficence of wealthy liberals is unlikely to be a recipe for satisfaction (see James Meek’s recent essay in the London Review of Books on Europhobic farmers who receive vast subsidies from the EU). More bizarrely, it has since emerged that regions with the closest economic ties to the EU in general (and not just of the subsidised variety) were most likely to vote Leave.
While it may be one thing for an investment banker to understand that they ‘benefit from the EU’ in regulatory terms, it is quite another to encourage poor and culturally marginalised people to feel grateful towards the elites that sustain them through handouts, month by month. Resentment develops not in spite of this generosity, but arguably because of it. This isn’t to discredit what the EU does in terms of redistribution, but pointing to handouts is a psychologically and politically naïve basis on which to justify remaining in the EU."
( http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/ )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 29th, 2016 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Dan74 said:
Why is automation an issue? Isn't the problem that so much manufacture has been abandoned in Europe? That given the recent instability, investors are wary which naturally impacts growth. EU is hardly a hub of commodity exports. And zero interest rates are not the cause of stagnation but an attempt to spur growth. So I am a bit lost here.

Astus wrote:
There is lot of manufacturing going on in the EU. With automation it requires less and less low-skilled workers.

"‘Machinery and vehicles’ is the most important individual product group in the international trade of the EU, accounting for 41 % of the total EU exports and 26 % of imports in 2013. The group records also the largest surplus in EU trade: EUR 275 billion in 2013.
The main exported products within the group are road vehicles, industrial machinery and electrical machinery, while the imports are dominated by electrical machinery, telecommunications equipment and IT products."
( http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Extra-EU_trade_in_manufactured_goods )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 29th, 2016 at 4:02 PM
Title: Re: Cancel the Order
Content:
Admin_PC said:
On the other hand, the approaches in Pure Land and Zen seem contradictory on the surface, but have the same ultimate aims.

Astus wrote:
If by ultimate aims you mean buddhahood, definitely true. However, it should not be forgotten that there are a number of differences between the Pure Land path and the path of sages.

http://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.hu/2016/06/an-answer-to-comment-comparing-zen-with.html

Jeff H said:
Refuge means we have confident faith that liberation and enlightenment are possible due to the example of arhats and buddhas who’ve gone before us. It means that those beings have provided us with a road map to follow them –- by our own efforts –- in the Dharma. And it means that we can expect to find support among others who are similarly trying to change their lives. But it does not mean that we turn the job over to any other being to “handle it” for us.

Astus wrote:
No buddha can save beings on their own, otherwise samsara has already been over and we wouldn't need any path. The Pure Land way is a teaching, a method, that one can use for attaining complete enlightenment. The reason it is the path that is swift and easy is that the immediate goal is to attain birth in Sukhavati, and such a birth is possible because the conditions are simple: to have faith, intention/vow, and mindfulness/practice. That is how karma works anyway (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 29th, 2016 at 3:29 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
dreambow said:
Farage's quip that many in the EU have never had a real job is very close to the truth.  These Bureaucrats and their long talk fests and long  lunches....an indulgent group who are completely removed from the man in the street and the consequences of their decision making.

Astus wrote:
Have you actually checked the facts?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36654901


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2016 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Ayu said:
I suspect it is a conspiracy

Astus wrote:
Comedian turned politician: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpgavJ17uTk, whose party gave Rome's new mayor, http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/22/virginia-raggi-rome-s-first-female-mayor-talks-to-euronews/.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
A very good piece from Paul Mason:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/global-order-britain-survive-eu-alternative-economic-model

Astus wrote:
If they went with EEA then free movement remains, and most of the other things. That's how they can make this Brexit mostly harmless and pointless.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2016 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Malcolm said:
Well, that would be a fair comparison is the leave vote was a clear mandate, but it wasn't. And, it is not a binding vote (which every one seems to forget).  As long as the UK does not trigger article 50, they are in the EU still.

Astus wrote:
And how do you imagine they could disregard the referendum in the parliament? It might have worse consequences then leaving.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, I was referring to the all the sturm and drung leading up to the vote.

But also from the second article you posted:
But politicians are talking tough. Concessions, they say, might encourage other member states to leave. For this reason one senior MP told me: "There must be consequences for Britain".

Astus wrote:
Well, it seems Merkel couldn't hold out against everyone else: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-result-german-eu-latest-news-leave-european-union-a7105946.html

BTW, it's like when someone says that he wants a divorce but then procrastinates in leaving the house and doing the official paperwork.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Malcolm said:
The EU's approach has not been, "UK we'll miss you," but rather, "You fools, you will regret this." Not a very appealing message.

Astus wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-rethink-idUSKCN0ZC0IB

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36630326


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
dreambow said:
Norway, Iceland and the Swiss are not part of the EU but in the free trade area EFTA and they are doing OK.
Why do people prefer this  deal to the EU? Not because it’s perfect – nothing is perfect – but because it allows participation in the European market while retaining  self-government.

Astus wrote:
Wrong examples. They all have to adopt EU laws, pay in to the EU, and allow free worker movement. What they don't get is a vote in any of the laws and regulations they have to follow.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I guess I don't really understand how the EU structure provides that, can someone explain that a bit better?

Astus wrote:
Every member state has to comply with a good number of EU laws including in their constitution. Any member state diverging from or violating those laws are taken to court. That actually provides a protection for all EU citizens who suffer injustice by any state institution. That is actually a great benefit for the people in general.

On the other hand, it should be clear that the EU is a union and not a federation or a state, so practically all member states are sovereign entities and there are many ways they can circumvent their own laws. For instance, the Hungarian government took away church status from all churches in 2012, set up a very short list of churches they accept, and then in 2014 the European Court ruled that the new church law is in violation of freedom of religion. Nevertheless, nothing has actually changed, and the churches haven't got back their previous legal status ever since.

Johnny Dangerous said:
how exactly does the EU prevent the rise of the far right, is it just that you fear national governments are more likely to lend the far right legitimacy, and have right parties ascend to power..

Astus wrote:
It cannot prevent it ultimately. There are actually far right parties in the EU parliament itself, who are against the EU. At the same time, it serves as a structure to bind countries and parties together, and through that prevent conflicts escalating between them. It should also be noted that a good number of far right parties are supported by and extensions of Russia, and there is an ongoing misinformation campaign to bring people to their nationalist causes. So far nothing really has been done by the EU, as far as I'm aware, but that is where again a united stand against that form of attack is important.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Astus wrote:
Far-right on the streets:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html

And online:

https://www.facebook.com/sarah.leblanc.718/media_set?set=a.10101369198638985&type=3&pnref=story


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Myoho-Nameless said:
Someone I know in Europe says that these "far right" groups tend to be in favor of "leftists" policies like safety nets, socialized medicine etc. They just don't want immigrants to have access to them and other than that, they aren't really rightist.

Astus wrote:
Correct. It's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29. In case there is someone who does not recognise the term and does not check the link: the most famous national socialist party ever was lead by Adolf Hitler.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It's my impression that the EU leadership generally gives a squat about public opinion regardless of what goes on, that certainly seems to have been the case with the possibility of Grexit.  I can see why people are scared about the far right thing though. The answer to that is a real movement to oppose far-right politics though, I don't quite understand how a neoliberal supra-national bureaucracy is some bulwark against far-right politics.

Astus wrote:
Have you followed the 2016 elections in Austria? First round was won by the far-right party by 35.1%, greens got second place by 21.3%, then the second round was won by the greens with 50.3% against 49.7%. Note, it was the far-right's gain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Haider ) in the 1999 elections that prompted the first ever http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/fileadmin/media/pdf/falkner_sanctions.pdf. Currently it is the new Polish right wing government that the http://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-sanctions-if-poland-doesnt-reverse-high-court-overhaul/a-19298401. The Hungarian right wing government has had its own clashes as well, and had to throw out a number of laws, e.g. about http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/european-union-hungary-european-parliament-resolution-on-hungarys-media-law/.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I keep hearing people say that Brexit is pretty much exclusively a victory for the far right, does this mean that staying in would have been a victory for the left? Would staying have been a victory for anyone? If so, who?

Astus wrote:
The Tories would have still failed, and Labour could have gained more support. It would have also allowed a reasonable position to address the grievances of Leave voters in a more peaceful way. Not the mention that the UK already had a special position in the EU. Although, all in all, the whole referendum was a bad idea.

Johnny Dangerous said:
How?

Astus wrote:
The EU is first of all is the organisation meant to keep Europe at peace and in mutual agreement. It is also a strong force against our Eastern neighbour Russia, plus a sizeable economy to keep things running in an orderly fashion (i.e. the EU regulations to protect its citizens and the environment). The other option, the voice of the nationalists, where there are independent states, is not a nice one. It may look like that Europe is a cultured and peaceful land, at least that's the impression I get from how American's see it. And while that is half true, there is another half. As https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgxglVm_2OY said about Hungary: "The fantasy home of every little girl who's young enough to love castles, but not quite old enough to be aware of neo-fascist political parties."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Malcolm said:
The American Left in general supported Brexit, because it represents the failure of neoliberalism.

Astus wrote:
Then it seems their assessment what the EU stands for is missing a number of key elements.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Lobsang Chojor said:
I agree that the far right see this as a victory for them, however the left (Corbyn etc.) supported brexit

Astus wrote:
Where did you get that from?

From 2 June:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430606

From 26 June (today):
"Analysis of the polling shows that Labour persuaded two-thirds of its supporters to vote remain. I think that is an achievement. And in part it is an achievement for Jeremy Corbyn and the shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Without the “remain and reform” demand they put forward, I think even more of our own people would have voted out."
( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/corbyn-leader-brexit-labour-rebels-sabotage )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems so strange to me that those who would support Bernie in the US can at the same time rejoice over and approve Brexit. Is it not apparent enough that with Brexit the right wing, especially far-right politics won?

"The EU already has two member states – Poland and Hungary – that have moved towards authoritarian nationalism and away from liberal democracy. The success of the English nationalist revolution (and that is what Brexit is) will further energise those forces throughout the union."
( http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-fantasy-is-about-to-come-crashing-down-1.2698974 )

See also: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-campaign-shows-perils-of-a-populist-paean-to-ignorance-1.2700314


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 25th, 2016 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Boomerang said:
I've been trying to do that, visualizing myself burning, freezing, being eaten alive, and so on.

Astus wrote:
Perhaps a different approach to it might work better. To believe fully in something, is to regard it as natural and self-evident. When one accepts something as true, one acts according to that reality. What importance does rebirth have in one's daily life? It means avoiding unwholesome acts and cultivating meritorious deeds. And when one sees the total futility of endless rebirth, that generates renunciation and the wish to attain liberation. Furthermore, understanding that not only oneself is subject to a meaningless and painful cycle, but all other beings as well, compassion for all can rise. Continuing that line of thought, one may also realise that rebirth is not anything that one controls, but only the interplay of causes and conditions, without an personal element in it, and that provides an insight into emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 25th, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Boomerang said:
I've believed in rebirth longer than I've believed in Buddhism. Still, I feel that I could believe in rebirth more. Then I would have more samvega and bodhicitta.

Astus wrote:
If you accept rebirth and you want to improve your motivation, contemplate the six realms and the drawbacks of samsara.

As for beginning to believe in rebirth, Malcolm has already recommended the best way of investigating it on the experiential rather than the conceptual level. If we look at our present experiences, it easily becomes clear that the mind can operate independent of the body. Then we can see how the mind functions influenced by its own habitual patterns. Those two show that with the death of the body there is still a mind bound by its own inclinations.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2016 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
IME there is a difference between healthy "pushing against" oneself - even if we consider it spiritually lesser pursuit-, and the kind of self-hatred and grasping that you are talking about, which is rife all over the world of fitness, diet etc. While it's true that many competitive pursuits end up there, IMO, and IME they do not have to.

Astus wrote:
Certainly, there are various degrees, and it is good to be able to have motivation but not fall into various traps of overdoing it. On the other hand, it is not an uncommon belief that any cultivation is pointless, because in this age the capacity of the people are meagre, their karma is heavy, and only through an external help can they be liberated.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
There are times where you can only "self-improve" so far, in a traditional art at least, part of this means simply accepting your limitations, finding what you are good at, and doing your best with that, without fear of failure, and moving away from a goal -centered approach. For most people who are "lifers" it becomes a kind of joy for it's own sake, and indeed most of the people I've known (myself included) with long years in the arts long ago gave up on the goal-oriented approach and simply love doing it.

Astus wrote:
What you say sounds not like challenging yourself, but cultivating something. That is not competition in any sense, but simply finding joy in an activity.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
the greater thing was challenging yourself through competition, rather than beating others.

Astus wrote:
How is that really better? Challenging yourself is trying to reach an ideal goal, that is often set by others. That concept of self-improvement is most apparent in the fitness and diet culture that makes many depressed when they fail to look like athletes or even just lose a few kilos. It creates an inner war, that leads many to feel disappointed with oneself, while others become obsessed with reaching and maintaining an ideal.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Kaccāni said:
Compete can also only mean to engage in a contest.

Astus wrote:
Life might be described as a competition for survival and procreation, but that is a theoretical concept that one either subscribes to or not. Those who accept it as a valid truth are those who compete. And those who compete are in the mindset that desires winning, and that is engaging in a competition. Saying that others may label one's activity as competition is irrelevant, because there are also those who imagine life to be governed by fate or a god.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Kaccāni said:
When there is awareness of the competition, you may argue that you're still "in" it, it's still within your awareness, it appears in consciousness, the situation lies before you, yet the competition will not defile you and you can be all calm you want.

Astus wrote:
To compete is the desire to defeat others and win. Competition that doesn't defile means one is without the desire to win and defeat others, hence one does not compete. To participate in a competition with some other purpose is possible, if that's what you mean, but then winning cannot be the goal. One should also be aware not to fall into the error of thinking that the end justifies the means.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at 5:02 PM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Kaccāni said:
Yet you may be calm in competition.

Astus wrote:
How do you do that?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Kaccāni said:
So the practice, in and competition, is to stay calm.

Astus wrote:
If you compete, you're not calm.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are victims of every social order, those who do not fit in are cast out or crushed, and there are those at the bottom of society, the poor. This was not different in the socialist era. The ex-Warsaw Pact country I live in (Hungary) had its own version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism that made it the happiest barrack following the reforms in the 1960s. Those are the decades that people thought/think of with nostalgia after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc that, with the introduction of capitalism, resulted in several difficulties. No wonder that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Socialist_Party - official successor of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Socialist_Workers%27_Party - formed the elected government three times since then, and currently the strongest opposition party, although rapidly losing voters to the far-right.

But, before the "happy times", there were two darker episodes of communism in Hungary. Hungary was the second country in the world to become officially socialist, and it lasted from 21 March until 1 August 1919. It was the time of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_%28Hungary%29 with its infamous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Boys, only to be followed by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_%28Hungary%29 of the following government to eliminate communists, including a good number of Jews (this is not the Holocaust yet). Then the kingdom was restored (without a king), a million people killed (at least half of them in the Holocaust), another war lost, and with the Soviet army came "our nation's wise leader", "Stalin's best pupil", comrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1ty%C3%A1s_R%C3%A1kosi, who happened to be the sixth child of Jewish parents. That was the era of proper dictatorship with purges, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Protection_Authority, show trials, personality cult, and the usual methods required to establish a fine socialist state. There is a fantastic satire film about that era, made in 1969 - sponsored by the state, immediately banned by the state, and released to the public in 1979 by the state - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witness_%281969_Hungarian_film%29. If you have the opportunity to obtain it with English subtitles, you should see it.

Regarding Buddhism, the http://europeanbuddhism.org/members/buddhist-mission-hungary-church-of-arya-maitreya-mandala/ was officially recognised in 1956 by the state, and it is still an active group. As I have heard it, it was recognised as an official church in order to serve as a countermeasure against the Catholic Church, and it was of course under surveillance by the state. Here is a short introduction from the 1973 edition of Bulletin of Tibetology by the founder: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_10_01_03.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Does competition increase greed, malice, and covetousness?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Winning gives birth to hostility.
Losing, one lies down in pain.
The calmed lie down with ease,
having set winning & losing aside.
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.15.than.html.201)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
That is the goal, yes.

Astus wrote:
With sadhana practice one gradually develops a clear image, an understanding of the meaning of the image, and the pride in being the deity. That sounds more than ritualised practice to me, it is qualitatively different from merely reciting the sadhana. It is not a good example of how ritualised practice is liberating.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Temicco said:
That's an interesting way to look at it, I just don't really get why a "tradition" is any more necessary than some kind of undefined sramana group. Is there evidence that there's more staying power and accessibility in the former?

Astus wrote:
Undefined sramana groups have a short lifespan. An early term for Buddhism is Dharma-Vinaya, that is, Doctrine and Discipline. Both are equally important. I think there is ample evidence of several communities that used rules and regulations to survive the centuries, while occasional groups that happened to come together dispersed.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
Since the Sambogakaya is a manifestation of enlightenment, it is undeceived about the true nature of emptiness. And since your mind has mixed with the deity, when the deity is dissolved into unmistaken emptiness, your mind is unerringly brought to the same state. There is absolutely no need for philosophical positions or discrimination. This is unlike Sutra where you must find your way to emptiness.

Astus wrote:
That is, if one perfectly identifies oneself with the deity, one becomes a living buddha. Is that what you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Malcolm said:
It means that one has received direct introduction through the word empowerment and is experientially familiar with the example wisdom. So no, one has not realized emptiness, but neither is one pretending.

Dzogchen, of course, is quite different.

Astus wrote:
Example wisdom occurs at the wisdom empowerment, but according to Tsele Natsok (Empowerment, p 41) if it's not genuine insight "there is no way to recognize all forms of conceptual thinking to be the innate nature (dharmata), and thus one misses the point of the third empowerment. Without experiencing the nature of the third empowerment, one does not obtain the true fourth empowerment."

Also, according to Thrangu rinpoche (Creation and Completion, p 142-143), the sudden pointing out of the nature of the mind "as authentic as it is, is in some ways adulterated by conceptualization and therefore remains an experience rather than a realization. The problem with this is that, while the recognition is authentic as far as it goes, because it is incomplete and imperfect, it will at some point vanish. When it vanishes, the student does not know how to bring it back, because their initial recognition was experienced under the dramatic circumstances of receiving the pointing out from their guru." That is practically a criticism of the example wisdom. Therefore, he says, the solution to that in the Kagyu tradition is "to enable students, through their own exploration, to come to a decisive recognition of the mind's nature."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is termed "taking the result as the path."

Astus wrote:
Does that mean one has actually realised emptiness? Or is it just pretending?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
Merging the deity with my mind.

Astus wrote:
"The visualization of oneself and all sentient beings in the form of Chenrezig is the development stage, and this is method. Recognizing that both the visualization and the form visualized are empty is the fulfillment stage, and this is wisdom. One should always combine these two aspects of practice, method and wisdom."
( http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/dev/dev03.php )

Based on the above quote, visualisation of being the deity is not the part where realisation happens, but when that vision is seen as mind-made and insubstantial. Or do you mean something else?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
The deity, and my internalising it through meditation. "Meditating on the deity"="drinking the beer". Get it?

Astus wrote:
As far as I'm aware, meditation on a deity has several steps and elements, for instance the realisation of the deity as clarity-emptiness, or the whole process of completion stage with and without marks. What part do you mean by internalisation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
So your question is like asking if the pitcher of beer an "outer force" that is making me drunk, or is it my action of drinking the beer?

Astus wrote:
So, what is the cause of realisation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_intoxication:
"Alcohol intoxication is the result of alcohol entering the bloodstream faster than it can be metabolized by the liver, which breaks down the ethanol into non-intoxicating byproducts. "


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Malcolm said:
While it is true that there is some preliminary analysis derived from Madhyamaka reasonings which may be found in Lamdre, Kagyu Mahāmudra and so on, the key distinction is that Madhyamaka offers no method of directly experiencing one's own dharmatā.

Astus wrote:
It's not merely some preliminary analysis, but the method used to examine the mind and all phenomena, and through that examination can one arrive at genuine realisation. It is just like that in the Bhavanakrama. So, I don't see how Madhyamaka would be lacking in anything, when it can lead to - and it is used as such - to non-conceptual wisdom.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Malcolm said:
In a sadhana you start with the realization of emptiness at the beginning.

Astus wrote:
So anyone who even begins one is a realised being?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
The deity.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean the deity as an outer force makes you realised, or is it the visualisation of the deity that causes realisation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
smcj said:
I believe, as do all my lamas, that you can attain the highest realisations through sadhana practice.

Astus wrote:
And what is it in a sadhana that is the cause of realisation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Queequeg said:
my understanding is that the real dharmas you refer to arise in the contact between sense object and sense apparatus. Red, for instance, arises on the eye seeing something 'red'. Red, however, is nothing more than the sensation of red. The object itself is not red, nor is it not not red... it is inconveivable.

Astus wrote:
Of the four ultimate dharmas only nirvana is unconditioned. Red is a rupa-dharma (see: Comprehensive Manual, p 237), of the category of objective material phenomena (gocararupa), and within that it is a visible form (rupa). So, red is not a dharma, but only a derivative of a dharma.

Queequeg said:
So then what you're describing as a Buddhist universal is the consciousness that arises on contact.

Astus wrote:
Universals are the dharmas, and not all dharmas are mind (citta) or mental (cetasika).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I understand that, but that doesn't make the meaning of 'dhammas' the same as what is meant by 'universals'. You're stretching the meaning of the term.
...
Just because dhammas are the supposed explanatory sub-stratum of experience, doesn't mean that they correspond to what was designated 'universals' in  Western philosophy.  They're nearer to atomism.

Astus wrote:
Then it turns out that universals are not found in Buddhism.

Wayfarer said:
I think this is as near as Buddhism gets to acknowledging universals.

Astus wrote:
The apoha idea seems to actually negate any possibility of universals. If a chair is defined by every non-chair, and all those non-chairs are again defined by everything other than those non-chairs, then we find how all definitions are non-definitions, and there is nothing defined by anything. This is basically another way to say that all phenomena are conditioned, and therefore empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Anders said:
I don't think this analysis has ever been 'required'. I think one of the down-sides of Tibetan Madhyamika is that in its present presentation, it is treated as a preliminary dialectic to something else, moreso than as a fullfledged school in its own right, with distinctive Madhyamika practices.

Astus wrote:
Madhyamika analysis in meditation is very much there in TB, for instance in Mahamudra, even if they pretend it's something different. But if one looks at the sutras where they teach that the unborn nature of the dharmas is what needs to be realised, then looks at MMK, it is easy to see how Nagarjuna gives a straightforward instruction in realisation. However, it is the natural progress of things that what was once a practical teaching becomes mere theory. That's why in the beginning we read that many attained enlightenment just by hearing the teachings, but later generations fail to achieve that. So, the teaching must adapt to the new conditions and must sound live and appropriate.

By the way, even Madhyamaka was once a novel form to correct the formalised teachings, and those formalised teachings themselves were at one point new and practical.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2016 at 5:04 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Temicco said:
I question the idea that people's contemporary needs really differ all that much. It seems like there are teachers concerned with getting people to realize the truth, and teachers concerned with throwing people a raft. Ritualization isn't liberative in any meaningful way.

Astus wrote:
Ossification is a necessary element of any tradition. While there is the living myth of the enlightened teacher, actually the transmission from one generation to another is about maintaining the tradition, so it is fairly mechanical, therefore the primary requirement for transmission is upholding a minimal standard as best as possible. This may sound like a bad or cheap thing, but practically this is how it works. If one accepts that liberation depends on the teachings and rituals transmitted, this keeps the door open for every participant to make use of it. In other words, only the blueprint of a raft can be handed over, and everyone has to build their own vehicle. Others may assist in reading the blueprint and advice on the building process, but they cannot give their own raft.

Temicco said:
Still looking around for communities, but this was where the issue I mentioned in the last paragraph of my last comment comes up. So many groups (even well-regarded ones) content themselves with charging you excessive amounts of money for the chance to come meditate and listen to people talk about their feelings and how spiritual incense is. It's not a conceptual phantasm to notice a difference between teachings that focus on liberation and money-grubbing church circles, and unfortunately the second is all I've found so far.

Astus wrote:
If there is no acceptable community in your vicinity, you might have to travel. That is, if you want to connect with some group. I don't think you'd be alone in that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Queequeg said:
Where can I find a textual source that explains this?

Astus wrote:
It's how the conventional (sammuti) and ultimate truth (paramattha sacca) are differentiated in abhidhamma.

"Different characteristics of rupa can be experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind. These characteristics are real since they can be experienced. We use conventional terms such as 'body' and 'table'; both have the characteristic of hardness which can be experienced through touch. In this way we can prove that the characteristic of hardness is the same, no matter whether it is in the body or in the table. Hardness is a paramattha dhamma; 'body' and 'table' are not paramattha dhammas but only concepts. We take it for granted that the body stays and we take it for self, but what we call 'body' are only different rupas arising and falling away. The conventional term 'body' may delude us about reality. We will know the truth if we learn to experience different characteristics of rupa when they appear."
( http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-01.htm )

Also I can recommend Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (and a great introduction in it) of https://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Vima Repa said:
That's not what "universal" means in the context of the problem of universals.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_%28metaphysics%29:
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.

Astus wrote:
Particular things have the dharmas in common, and those are their true characteristics and qualities. Dharmas are repeatable and recurrent as well, they exist in all the different experiences.

Vima Repa said:
Universals are hypothetical real entities that imbue particulars with their qualities.

Astus wrote:
Can be applied to the dharmas as well.

Vima Repa said:
A particular chair is a chair by virtue of its participating in the universal "chairness."

Astus wrote:
Buddhism approaches from a different angle, where both "chairness" and "a chair" are superficial, and the underlying universal qualities of dharmas are the true reality. However, just because it's the other way around, it does not mean they are not alike.

Vima Repa said:
In Buddhism, it's most certainly not the case that a dharma is impermanent by virtue of participating an abstract, eternal universal of "impermanence." This is exactly the sort of purely speculative philosophical entity that Buddhist thinkers have questioned for millennia.

Astus wrote:
The dharmas are the true realities whence illusory, conventional appearances are abstracted.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 7:12 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
seeker242 said:
This, from the Platform Sutra, always comes to mind whenever I hear about Chan being sudden or gradual.
“The Dharma is originally of one school. It is people who think of North and  South. The  Dharma  is  of  one  kind,  but  people understand it slowly or quickly. Dharma is not sudden or gradual. Rather it is people who are sharp or dull. Hence the terms sudden and gradual.”

Astus wrote:
It basically means that only stupid people think there is a gradual path. The whole point of that 8th chapter where North and South are distinguished is to vindicate Huineng's teaching of immediate enlightenment, just like it's done all over the text.

As Huineng tells Zhicheng: "The morality, meditation, and wisdom of your teacher is directed at people of the Great Vehicle. My morality, meditation, and wisdom are directed at people of the Supreme Vehicle."

Might also consider the following passages as well, to give a clearer picture:

"Good friends, those of small capacities who hear this sudden teaching are like plants whose capacities are small. Beset by a great rain, they all collapse and are unable to grow. People of small capacities are also like this. They possess the wisdom of prajñā fundamentally, no differently from those of great wisdom. So why do they hear the Dharma without being able to become enlightened? Because of the profundity of their false views and layered afflictions! Just as if great clouds are blocking the sun, unless a wind blows [them away], the light of the sun will not be visible.
There is also no great and small in the wisdom of prajñā; it is only that the delusion and enlightenment of the minds of all sentient beings differ. Those with deluded minds appear to be cultivating and seeking buddhahood, but they are unenlightened to their self-natures. Hence are they of small capacities. If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature."
(ch 2, BDK p 31-32)

"There are no sudden and gradual in the Dharma,
It is delusion and enlightenment that are slow or fast.
It is only this teaching of seeing the nature
Which stupid people cannot comprehend.
...
This verse is the sudden teaching.
It is also called the ship of the great Dharma.
In delusion one can listen to the sutras for eons, but
Enlightenment occurs in a moment."
(ch 2, BDK p 34, 36)

"Good friends, the correct teaching is fundamentally without either sudden or gradual—it is human nature that is either clever or dull. Deluded people cultivate gradually, while enlightened people suddenly conform [to the truth]. If you recognize your own fundamental mind and see your own fundamental nature, there will be no such distinctions! Thus it is that sudden and gradual are posited as provisional names."
(ch 4, BDK p 43)

"Our patriarchs have transmitted only this sudden teaching,
And you should all vow to see the nature and be identical to them."
(ch 7, BDK p 53)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But Platonic universals are not at all like the dharmas. Dharmas are the 'constituents of experience', they are grounded in 12 links of dependent origination and the conditioned nature of perception.  They're the momentary constituents of experience as revealed in meditative insight.

Astus wrote:
Dharmas are universal in the sense that they are the same for everyone. As for their momentary and empty nature, those are universal qualities of the dharmas. So, while the definitions are not the same in one aspect, they have a similar role as the basis of appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Queequeg said:
Particulars are derivative of dharmas?
Particulars are themselves dharmas...

Astus wrote:
By particulars I meant ordinary things like chairs, shoes, coats, and sandwiches. There is no dharma for one particular chair, nor for chairs in general, but only the dharmas of name and form, and from those basic dharmas come the illusion of individual objects and beings.

Queequeg said:
you're talking about sravakayana conceptions of irreducible dharmas?

Astus wrote:
Dharmas are the basic elements in Mahayana as well. The difference is whether they are considered with or without self-being (svabhava).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2016 at 5:32 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Temicco said:
The fact remains that Xu Yun taught something very different. Others, like Hsuan Hua, taught something very mixed.

Astus wrote:
What is so different in http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/? All that's said in http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/chan_sessions2.html is very much the norm since the 12th century. Compare it with http://chancenter.org/cmc/2011/10/13/essentials-of-practice-and-enlightenment-for-beginners/, and you'll see that they're not much different. As for Hsuan Hua, I find his teachings somewhat odd.

Other groups of the Chan brand: http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=15&Itemid=59, http://www.thienvientuquang.org/node/203 (check http://www.thienvientuquang.org/kinhsach/english/KeysToBuddhism.pdf ).

Temicco said:
Is there any evidence of that actually being the case? I didn't think the Chan Sangha just petered out of existence due to its lack of formalism. It's also weird of Dogen to emphasize the community over the Zen, IMO.

Astus wrote:
First of all, there hasn't been any "Chan Sangha", but simply monastic communities, and as monasteries they have various functions. Community and Zen have the same relation as Dharma and Sangha. The teachings remain relevant as long as there are people who follow them. As for Dogen's emphasis on monastic organisation, it was his goal to build an authentic community following the model he had seen in China. Also, what is the Zen part in Dogen's teachings? Could say it's zazen, but seated meditation is as common an element in Buddhism as sutra recitation. The idea is that all elements of monastic life is Zen, henceforth even the minutest details become important (note: this approach is nothing new in Soto). Then there's Keizan, called the second founder of Soto, whose greatest achievement was in the area of community building, while at the same time his teachings were more according to the contemporary trends in Zen.

Temicco said:
Everyone advises it, at any rate. But I know. At the very least a teacher could help me work through any reservations I may have, point me in the right directions, and urge me to anuttara samyak sambodhi (and not a partial buddhahood), as Dosha did for Bankei. It just seems like most teachers (or groups, at least) are more interested in teaching a bunch of doctrines than in spurring students towards buddhahood. And that's what puts me off.

Astus wrote:
You know your situation best. If you have not yet practised with a community, it is certainly a good idea to pay a visit. As for reservations and doubts, they are all conceptual phantasms. There is http://antaiji.org/en/services/%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E8%87%AA%E6%AE%BA%E3%81%97%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%A8%E6%80%9D%E3%81%84%E3%81%A4%E3%82%81%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E4%BA%BA%E3%81%B8-%E5%86%85%E5%B1%B1%E8%88%88%E6%AD%A3%E8%91%97/ attributed to Dogen: "I have not visited many Zen monasteries. I simply, with my master Tendo, quietly verified that the eyes are horizontal and the nose is vertical. I cannot be misled by anyone anymore. I have returned home empty-handed." And as for how that is all to learn in (Soto) Zen, see http://thatssozen.blogspot.hu/2014/09/zazen-or-no-one-can-help-you.html. However, I think it's already too much.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism is filled with universals, they are known as dharmas. The dharmas are not considered derivatives of particulars, it's the other way around. People conceive conventional terms, but behind those terms there are only dharmas. For instance the relationship between various physical objects and the four primary elements. However, dharmas don't all have equal ontological status.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:
dzoki said:
Well if we keep the process of translation of Dharma a thing of democracy and personal preferences, then we will continue to have shitty translations.

Astus wrote:
Even now not all translations are crap. And just as now one can tell the better and the worse sources, eventually there will be those that survive and those that will be forgotten.

dzoki said:
For example, Ole Nydahl wrote several books which introduce many misconceptions.

Astus wrote:
That's how freedom of religion works.

dzoki said:
Then his students take these up and go ahead and translate Karma Kagyu texts according to Ole's personal preferences.

Astus wrote:
Same thing happens in other religions.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Disillusioned by gradual teachings
Content:
Astus wrote:
For a clearer picture of Tang era Chan there are a number of fine studies out there, and likely more to come. What should never be forgotten is the monastic context and the Chinese Mahayana tradition, because they are always there, just like today. I'm not saying that the immediate method of Chan is not real, but it is not as pronounced as it may seem. Another thing is that in the end meditation is very much a personal matter, and there is no mind police to tell what practice you do.

Teachers today like Xingyun and Thich Nhat Hanh may not look even close to the stereotypical figures of Mazu and Linji, but my guess is that they are very close to how things actually looked like over a thousand years ago. And if you look into the works of Xingyun and TNH, they do teach Chan in its direct form.

There was an era in China when they revived the so called Patriarchal Chan in the 17th century, and that spread over to Japan as well. See Jiang Wu's two studies on this (Enlightenment in Dispute; Leaving for the Rising Sun). That reform came and went by, and while it had some lasting effects, the dramatisation of Chan stories - pretending to be like in the books - was not one of them. However, if you are looking for something like that, the Kwan Um School has it. Again, not because Korean Buddhism somehow preserved it (since there wasn't actually anything to preserve), but because Korean Buddhism had its 20th century revival and because Seung Sahn made that school what it is.

As I see it, there is currently only one community that openly follows a rather radical approach to Chan, and that is http://www.hanmaum.org/eng/ - no koan, no zazen, just go directly to buddha-nature. However, because it is a community, there are numerous things people occupy themselves with, so in the end it is not that different from the others in practical matters.

Another thing with the genuine direct teaching is that it does not build a group. Dogen tried to sort this out, but then what you get as a result is a community obsessed with rules and rituals (this is not a critique of Soto in general, but an observation on a number of zazen-centred groups of today, and somewhat on Dogen's stance on rules).

In the end, the direct method is to drop all concepts and live freely in contentment. What's the point of looking for groups and teachers for that?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:
Astus wrote:
Personally, I find most translations of Duff I have yet encountered not particularly readable, filled with made up terminology. Dowman's works are at least fluent. And in the long run, fluency beats accuracy. But I wouldn't go for either of them as my preferred sources.

As for the idea of a compulsory dictionary, unless you have a dictatorial system to force it, and of course sponsor the translations, it will never happen.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in three incalculable eons an improbable venture.
Content:
Anders said:
If the road looks heavy, aim for a holiday in the pure lands to solidify your roots and recharge your batteries.

Astus wrote:
That is indeed the universal advice, and the Pure Land path is the one that embraces people of all capacities. It should not be considered a lower method, since even great bodhisattvas go to Sukhavati. It is also not just a holiday, but the assured way to buddhahood.

"suppose there is a man who learns this teaching for the first time and wishes to seek the correct faith but lacks courage and strength. Because he lives in this world of suffering, he fears that he will not always be able to meet the Buddhas and honor them personally, and that, faith being difficult to perfect, he will be inclined to fall back. He should know that the Tathagatas have an excellent expedient means by which they can protect his faith: that is, through the strength of wholehearted meditation on the Buddha, he will in fulfillment of his wishes be able to be born in the Buddha-land beyond, to see the Buddha always, and to be forever separated from the evil states of existence. It is as the sutra says: "If a man meditates wholly on Amitabha Buddha in the world of the Western Paradise and wishes to be born in that world, directing all the goodness he has cultivated toward that goal, then he will be born there." Because he will see the Buddha at all times, he will never fall back."
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2016 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in three incalculable eons an improbable venture.
Content:
Malcolm said:
Cooking the Dharma books....

Astus wrote:
It's called exegesis.

"the three-asankhya kalpas refer to the three poisoned states of mind. What we call asankhya in Sanskrit you call countless. Within these three poisoned states of mind are countless evil thoughts, And every thought lasts a kalpa. Such an infinity is what the Buddha meant by the three asankhya kalpas, Once the three poisons obscure your real self, how can you be called liberated until you overcome their countless evil thoughts? People who can transform the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion into the three releases are said to pass through the three-sankhya kalpas. But people of this final age are the densest of fools. They don’t understand what the Tathagata really meant by the three-asankhya kalpas. They say enlightenment is only achieved after endless kalpas and thereby mislead disciples to retreat on the path to Buddhahood."
(Bodhidharma: http://www.fodian.net/world/dmpsl-e.html )

"There are a bunch of shavepate monks who say to students, ‘The Buddha is the Ultimate; he attained buddhahood only after he came to the fruition of practices carried on through three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas.’ Followers of the Way, if you say that the Buddha is the ultimate, how is it that after eighty years of life the Buddha lay down on his side between the twin śāla trees at Kuśinagara and died? Where is the Buddha now? We clearly know that his birth and death were not different from ours."
(Record of Linji, p 19, tr Sasaki)

"In fact, time and space are concepts of ordinary people with discriminating minds. Noble bodhisattvas have no such conceptions, because time and space are merely conventional designations of the physical world. In the world of pure mind, concepts such as the length of time or the size of space cannot even be established. Even the dreams of ordinary people are unfettered by the limitations of ordinary time and space—how could noble ones who have transcended the world be bound by such limitations? A sūtra states that a long kalpa “enters” a short kalpa and a short kalpa enters a long kalpa, that one kalpa enters all kalpas and that all kalpas enter one kalpa, that a moment of thought enters the three times and the three times enter a moment of thought, that a billion-world universe enters a particle and a particle is the same as a billion-world universe, and even that one skin pore contains countless worlds (see the Avatamsaka Sūtra). While these statements may at first seem to be mind-boggling myths, after deeper and objective analysis we discover they are not without truth."
(Sheng-yen: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p 99-100)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in three incalculable eons an improbable venture.
Content:
Astus wrote:
It all depends on how one counts those aeons.

For instance, these are not uncommon statements in the sutras ( http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html ):

"If good men and good women, having heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā, can come to resoluteness in their minds, not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, know that they stand on the Ground of No Regress. If those who have heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā are not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, but believe, accept, appreciate, and listen tirelessly, they have in effect achieved dāna-pāramitā, śīla-pāramitā, kṣānti-pāramitā, vīrya-pāramitā, dhyāna-pāramitā, and prajñā-pāramitā. Moreover, they can reveal and explicate [the teachings] to others and can have them train accordingly."

"If, among good men and good women, there are those who can believe and delight in this profound prajñā-pāramitā without doubts, they must have long trained and learned under past Buddhas, and planted their roots of goodness."

"if in future times, among good men and good women, there are those who, having heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā, listen and accept it with faith and delight, we should know by this indication that they too have heard it from past Buddhas, and have studied and practiced it."

So, if you can actually hear, accept, and even understand the sutra, you are already a great bodhisattva. Now, compare that to those who may only have a passing thought about the Buddha and how long they have left till buddhahood. And there are other reasons why the uncountable aeons are not that simple a matter. Although, it could be said that those who are shocked and afraid are not yet that advanced.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 13th, 2016 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Britian's upcoming E.U referendum
Content:
Astus wrote:
If they vote to stay, the EU is justified, so further requests for special treatment of the UK can be dismissed.
If they vote to leave, they will still be subject to the same EU laws and regulations without any power to change them.
All in all, this whole referendum idea will likely cause the fall of the current British government, no matter the results.

And from the perspective of the ordinary citizen, better vote stay. The EU makes travel and such a lot easier.

As for the global concerns of industrialisation and protection of the environment, only larger groups can make efficient changes. So, it is ethically defensible to vote in.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 13th, 2016 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Well, I can think of occasions where my actions were deliberately hurtful and gave rise to feelings of hurt in the object of my behaviour. So this idea that the "meaning" of all actions is just what we interpret them to be, seems to not stand true.

Astus wrote:
The situation you describe follows conventional causal relations, and there is no denial of that. However, there is also the possibility to hear angry words and not be offended.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Similarly to the http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=342619#p342619 instructions for Zen, here are the instructions to " http://www.purifymind.com/ObstaclesPath.htm ":

"once you have recognized the arising of whatever klesha it is, then you simply look directly at its nature without altering anything, without attempting to alter your mind or the klesha. As you look at its nature you will experience and recognize its nature."


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Astus, the topic has been (this entire time) what to do to deal with the fetters or kilesas. Your quotes are stories of Awakened masters pointing the truth to very highly realized students. This is not appropriate response for the low level of development that is present day practitioners on the internet.

Astus wrote:
Zen is the easiest approach there is, but it's also easy to misinterpret the words. If you say that people have dull faculties and need simple methods, tell me, what is so complicated about recognising that all the six types of sensory phenomena are unattainable? Even reciting a buddha's name takes more effort than that.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Saoshun said:
View based on clarity isn't intellectual.

Astus wrote:
What view is that?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that what you are describing is an intellectual view that is meaningless outside of the context of a teacher student relationship, where such a view is integrated meaningfully with practice. There is no liberation through words, my friend, as your final citation points out.

Astus wrote:
Whatever that can be described or taught by anyone is an intellectual view. To see that all views are nothing more than mind made concepts is to be free from them. To look for more than that is indeed falling in to the thicket of views.

Also, you could have added that the teachings were for monastics, so there is no point for us laity to dabble in such matters. However, to both objections here is a quote from the Platform Sutra:

Lord Wei asked further, “How can householders cultivate this practice? I hope you will teach us this.” 
The master said, “I will recite a formless verse for this great assembly. Just cultivate according to this, doing exactly as if you were always with me. If you do not cultivate according to this, what benefit would it be to take the tonsure and leave home [to become a monk]?”
(ch 4, BDK p 40)

And in the sutra's final chapter:

"I will tell you again, in order to make you see your natures. After my nirvana, practice in accordance with this just as if I were alive. If you go against my teaching, it would be no use even if I were alive. I will say another verse"
(p 91)

"This Platform Sutra has been transmitted in order to make manifest the central doctrine, to disseminate the triple treasure, and to benefit all living beings."
(p 93)

Malcolm said:
It is funny to watch ordinary people like us confidentally opine on awakening, it is like watching children playing at being royalty.

Astus wrote:
Who else would opine on awakening? On the other hand, since buddhas have infinite manifestations, there should be several of them present here.

"If the deluded people of some later time recognize sentient beings, [they will recognize them] as the buddha-nature. If they do not recognize sentient beings, they could seek the Buddha for ten thousand eons without ever meeting him. I teach you now: to recognize the sentient being in one’s own mind is to see the buddha-nature in one’s own mind. If you wish to see the Buddha, just recognize the sentient being [in your mind]. It is only sentient beings who are deluded as to the Buddha; the buddhas are not deluded about sentient beings. If you are enlightened to your self-nature, then the sentient being is the Buddha; if you are deluded as to the self-nature, then [what might be] a ‘buddha’ is [only] a sentient being."
(p 89-90)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is all very nice, Astus, but what you are describing is just an intellectual view thst wont help one deal with affluctions at all.

Astus wrote:
What view is not intellectual? The teachings are all made of words. How one uses them decides if they are of any help. Even Bodhidharma http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enBodhiDharmaSutraWithAnnotation.htm the direct entrance as "to awaken to the Truth through the doctrine". And direct entrance is where the teaching of afflictions are bodhi belongs to:

"In the Ultimate Vehicle, we neither transform our afflictions nor extinguish them; our mind is originally pure and lucid. This mind is inherent in everyone; we do not need to seek it externally. This is the Chan School’s principle of “affliction is bodhi; birth and death (samsara) is nirvana.”"
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

As for teaching it, here's a short story.

For a long time Yaoshan did not enter the hall to speak. 
The temple director said to him, “The monks have been waiting for a long time for the master to give them some instruction.”
Yaoshan said, “Ring the bell!”
The monks assembled in the hall. 
Yaoshan then got down from the Dharma seat and went back to the abbot’s quarters.
The temple director followed him and said, “Master, since you consented to speak to the monks, why didn’t you say anything?”
Yaoshan said, “Sutras have sutra teachers. Shastras have shastra teachers. Why are you unhappy with me?”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 124-125)

So, what is there to do with views and words?

"The more words and thoughts the more you will go astray.
Stop speaking, stop thinking and there is nothing you cannot understand."
( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/fm/fm.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Then, please explain the difference between mere indifference (to thoughts) and liberation (from attachment to thoughts).

Astus wrote:
Indifference is a concept where one deems something uninteresting or irrelevant. Liberation means not abiding in any concept, neither grasping nor rejecting.

Malcolm said:
Yes, so, what does it look like to become free of attachment to thoughts? How does one actually do that?

Astus wrote:
If you think that none of the passages already quoted answer that, then here is the instruction for zazen:

"When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf_Mindfulness%20and%20Mindlessness.pdf. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone."
(Zongmi on Chan, p 88; same in http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html and http://zen.rinnou.net/zazen/sitting.html )

Malcolm said:
Again, this is a prescription, not a description. How does one purify the fundamental mind? (I assume he means here the ālayavijñāna).

Astus wrote:
The fundamental mind (本心) is one's original buddha nature. To purify it means to see it, to recognise that it is originally pure.

Malcolm said:
What does "realizing emptiness" actually mean and how does one do it. Descriptions please, no more prescriptions, we have had enough of these already.

Astus wrote:
If Zen and prajnaparamita do not match your criteria for descriptions, there are all sorts of other manuals.

Malcolm said:
What awakening are you trying to describe? How do you do it?

Astus wrote:
I have described awakening as seeing the insubstantiality of afflictions. Regarding methods, there are numerous.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So the only difference between  buddhas and sentient beings is attachment to thoughts?

Astus wrote:
What more needed?

"To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not to be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren’t attached to form are the gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to afflictions is what’s meant by liberation. There’s no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn’t give rise to mind and mind doesn’t give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure."
( http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/THE%20ZEN%20TEACHINGS%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.htm )

"The Buddhas of the ten directions realized the true nature of things and spontaneously perceive the source of mind; errant imagining does not arise, accurate awareness is not lost. The egoistic, possessive attitude disappears, so they are not subject to birth and death, they are ultimately tranquil; so obviously all happiness naturally comes to them.
Ordinary people lose sight of the nature of reality and do not know the basis of mind. Arbitrarily fixating on all sorts of objects, they do not cultivate awareness; therefore love and hatred arise. Because of love and hatred, the vessel of mind cracks and leaks. Because the vessel of mind cracks and leaks, there is birth and death. Because there is birth and death, all miseries naturally appear.
The Mind King Scripture says that true thusness, the Buddha-nature, is submerged in the ocean of cognition, perception, and sense, bobbing up and down in birth and death, unable to escape. Effort should be made to preserve the basic true mind, so that arbitrary thoughts do not arise, egoistic and possessive attitudes vanish, and you spontaneously realize equality and unity with the Buddhas."
( http://terebess.hu/zen/daman.html )

Malcolm said:
This gets back to the question you have not answered, how does the mind become free from afflictions, since this is necessary preconditions for what you are describing as nonconceptuality (nirvikalpa)?

Astus wrote:
Afflictions come from attachment to thoughts. Once there is no attachment, there are no afflictions either. The quoted line from the Platform Sutra continues as follows:

"[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."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK p 33)

Nagarjuna writes as well:

"Liberation follows from the exhaustion of action and affliction.
Action and affliction are due to thought,
And thoughts proliferate due to mental construction.
They are brought to an end by emptiness."
(MMK 18.5, tr from Ornament of Reason)

Malcolm said:
How could there be?

Astus wrote:
Since you http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=342396#p342396 that "The ultimate is just a pure absence.", you've answered the question.

Malcolm said:
That does not settle anything, since as you admit above affliction and clinging is the problem, not characteristics.

Astus wrote:
Affliction and clinging comes from not seeing emptiness. Since names are empty, there is no problem, when it is realised.

Malcolm said:
I see, so there is apprehension of characteristics, but you don't "grasp" them. Well, many people also understand this and practice this way, and yet, they still are not awakened. I still think you have failed to escape intellectualism here.

Astus wrote:
What awakening is it you miss?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Many people continue to grasp even though they know characteristics are concepts. So, there is still something missing. Your presentation is completely intellectual.

Astus wrote:
Grasping is always at characteristics. If one does not conceive characteristics, how can there be grasping? What many people may know and still continue to grasp at objects are words, that is, grasping at characteristics, imagining that emptiness is another thing.

Enlightenment is naturally true and is fundamentally without names. It is only that people of the world do not recognize it and remain deluded within their ratiocination. The Buddhas then appear [in the world] to destroy their misconceptions. I am afraid that you people do not comprehend but provisionally establish the name “enlightenment.” You must not generate interpretations so as to maintain this name. Therefore it is said, “attain the fish and forget the trap.”
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, p 32)

Malcolm said:
So how do you do that (realize and manifest them)?
So what is the different between a buddha and the unconscious devas. Both have stopped thinking.

Astus wrote:
It is not thoughtlessness, but not grasping at thoughts.

"What is nonthought? If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations.
...to be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is for the myriad dharmas to be completely penetrated. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to see the realms of [all] the buddhas. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK p 33, 34)

Malcolm said:
I see, so there is no ultimate.

Astus wrote:
Is there such a thing as "pure absence"?

Malcolm said:
So there are names.

Astus wrote:
Even names are without characteristics.

Malcolm said:
But this is still just intellectualism. Many people here understand that phenomena are inessential, and yet, they are not awake. There is still something missing from your presentation.

Astus wrote:
Thinking that there is no essence is grasping at an essence. To recognise in one's present experience that there is nothing that can be grasped is what is meant by seeing characteristics to be fictional.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is prescriptive and not descriptive.

Astus wrote:
Marks/characteristics are concepts. As long as one believes those concepts to be substantial, there is clinging. Once they are seen as merely conceptual, there is nothing left to grasp.

Malcolm said:
This is is not an answer.

Astus wrote:
It answers it by showing how while we all have the qualities of a buddha, it doesn't mean we realise and manifest them.

Malcolm said:
But why?

Astus wrote:
As Huangbo puts it (Zen Texts, p 13):

"It is only this One Mind that is Buddha; there is no distinction between Buddhas and sentient beings. However, sentient beings are attached to characteristics and seek outside themselves. Seeking it, they lose it even more. Sending the Buddha in search of the Buddha, grasping the mind with the mind, they may exhaust themselves in striving for an entire eon but will never get it. They do not understand that if they cease their thoughts and end their thinking, the Buddha will automatically be present."

Malcolm said:
So there is something other than the ultimate?

Astus wrote:
The ultimate is seeing the conventional as conventional.

Malcolm said:
So there are names? Or not.

Astus wrote:
We use words (i.e. names) here all the time, don't we?

Malcolm said:
So your basic conclusion is that there is no awakening, and therefore, the whole thing is a farce.

Astus wrote:
There is ignorance about and awakening to phenomena as inessential.

"when the sky-flowers disappear from the sky, you cannot say that there is a definite point of their disappearance. Why? Because there is no point from which they arose. All sentient beings falsely perceive arising and ceasing within the unarisen."
http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/sutra_of_perfect_enlightenment.html#div-1


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Each bhumi has certain hallmarks. On 8th Bhumi you can directly see sambhogakaya Buddhas and have power over birth and death.

Astus wrote:
What is the practical role or value of that information?

- Someone practices buddha contemplation, like as it's taught in the Pratyutpanna-samadhi Sutra, one qualifies as being on the 8th stage. But what is that idea even good for to think that "I am 8th stage"? Fairly meaningless and shows lack of confidence. So, it cannot be it.
- It allows scholars to assign numbers to various bodhisattvas in scriptures. That's a cynical view.
- It serves as an excuse for people to consider the bodhisattvayana too difficult and impractical. But that cannot be the original purpose.
- The stages are a convenient schematic way to use in describing the path, and that is how they were actually applied, similar to the noble eightfold path.

As for the "magical powers" of the bodhisattvas on the stages, where they are said to be able to manifest hundred bodies, etc., those are to indicate meditative power and experiences, thus the sutra says that they are attained in a single thought by those who have gone forth, i.e. left home as monastics. As Vasubandhu explains in the Shastra on Dasabhumika Sutra ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T26n1522_003#0144c19 ): "Then the bodhisattva leaves home and meditates with surpassing karma. Surpassing karma is two sorts. One is surpassing samadhi: so called because attains samadhi easily, so in a single thought attains a hundred samadhis. The second sort is surpassing act in samadhi: (seeing hundred buddhas and their lands, etc.)"

To that it should be also kept in mind that seeing a single buddha is equal to seeing all the buddhas, and all visions of buddhas are mind made.

"If they can continue, thought after thought, thinking of one Buddha, they will be able to see, in their thinking, past, future, and present Buddhas. Why? Because the merit acquired from thinking of one Buddha is immeasurable and boundless, no different from the merit acquired from thinking of innumerable Buddhas or thinking of the inconceivable Buddha Dharma."
( http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html )

"If one wishes to see the Buddha then one sees him. If one sees him then one asks questions. If one asks then one is answered, one hears the sutras and rejoices greatly. One reflects thus: 'Where did the Buddha come from? Where did I go to?' and one thinks to oneself: 'The Buddha came from nowhere, and I also went nowhere.' One thinks to oneself: The Three Realms—the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of the Formless—these Three Realms are simply made by thought. Whatever I think, that I see. The mind creates the Buddha. The mind itself sees him. The mind is the Buddha. The mind is the Tathagata. The mind is my body, the mind sees the Buddha."
(Pratyutpanna-samadhi Sutra, ch 2, BDK p 21)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
I am not grasping at emanations. 100 emanations is a hallmark of the first bhumi.

Astus wrote:
The Ten Stages chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra says about those who attained the first stage:

"Having gone forth, enlightening beings instantly attain a hundred concentrations and see a hundred buddhas and acknowledge their power; they stir a hundred worlds, go to a hundred lands, illumine a hundred worlds, mature a hundred beings, live for a hundred eons, penetrate a hundred eons past and future, contemplate a hundred teachings, and manifest a hundred bodies, each body manifesting a company of a hundred enlightening beings."
(tr Cleary, p 710-711 / http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T10n0279_034#0183b29 )

Then on the next stage it's a thousand, then hundred thousand, then a billion, then a trillion, etc. There are a number of ways to interpret those lines. What is your version?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
How do you even attain first bhumi, and the ability to emanate 100 emanations, in Chan?

Astus wrote:
As long as one grasps at words and ideas like bhumis and emanations, one is far from being an ordinary person with nothing to do.

You say, ‘The six pāramitās and the ten thousand [virtuous] actions are all to be practiced.’ As I see it, all this is just making karma. Seeking buddha and seeking dharma are only making hell-karma. Seeking bodhisattvahood is also making karma; reading the sutras and studying the teachings are also making karma. Buddhas and patriarchs are people with nothing to do. Therefore, [for them] activity and the defiling passions and also nonactivity and passionlessness are ‘pure’ karma.
(Record of Linji, tr Sasaki, p 17)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
How does one relinquish marks that do not exist? And if it is the case that one must relinquish marks, is it not also the case that one must relinquish the afflictions that cause clinging to marks?

Astus wrote:
The part I quoted from PP8000 (22.2) asks the same question and answers in the following way:

"To the extent that beings take hold of things and settle down in them, to that extent is there defilement. But no one is thereby defiled. And to the extent that one does not take hold of things and does not settle down in them, to that extent can one conceive of the absence of I-making and mine-making. In that sense can one form the concept of the purification of being, i.e. to the extent that they do not take hold of things and do not settle down in them, to that extent there is purification. But no one is therein purified. When a Bodhisattva courses thus, he courses in perfect wisdom. It is in this sense that one can form the concept of the defilement and purification of beings in spite of the fact that all dharmas are isolated and empty."

Also from the http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T08n0232_001#0727c11 ):

The Buddha asked, “What is called true reality?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “The view that one has a self is true reality.”
The Buddha asked, “Why is the view that one has a self true reality?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Taking this view as an appearance of true suchness, which is neither real nor unreal, neither coming nor going, with neither a self nor no self, is called true reality.”

Malcolm said:
Then everyone is a great master of Chan.

Astus wrote:
All beings have the buddha-nature. But, as http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/tsung-ching-record:

"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."

Malcolm said:
The ultimate is just a pure absence. How can that be all the conventional is?

Astus wrote:
The conventional is just the conventional. Its substance is absent.

In Linji's words (tr Sasaki, p 19):

"All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty. All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That’s all wrong!"

And in http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html:

"Just as self is only a name, so too Buddha is only a name. Realizing the emptiness of a name is bodhi. One should seek bodhi without using names. The appearance of bodhi is free from words. Why? Because words and bodhi are both empty."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I also know there are no characteristics. So you are still leaving something out.

Astus wrote:
If it's not the difference between thinking and doing, then please tell what you mean.

Malcolm said:
That's why people think Chan is nihilistic.

Astus wrote:
It is quite the opposite, very much life affirming and down to earth. The only true Chan practices are eat, shit, sleep.

Wasn't it just recently that in some thread you were emphasising how everything is illusion? I mean, that must sound nihilistic as well then.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2016 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I see phenomena as insubstantial. Am I awakened? (Answer: no) I recognize all phenomena as equal. Am I alwakened? (Answer: no) So there must be something else you are leaving out.

Astus wrote:
What would that be?

"The mark of self is no mark. The mark of others, the mark of living beings, and the mark of a life are no marks. And why? Those who have relinquished all marks are called Buddhas."
( http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoor/archive/sutra_comm/diamond/diamond_02.htm#d14 )


Malcolm said:
All these say that from the point of ultimate truth. But not from the point of view of relative truth. You must distinguish the two truths.

Astus wrote:
They talk about what should be clear, that the conventional reality is just conventional, and that is all the ultimate there is.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2016 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Lame, Astus. Everything is without substance, that does not mean that everything is awakened.

Astus wrote:
Seeing them to be insubstantial is awakening, and recognising all phenomena to be equal (samsara=nirvana).

Malcolm said:
You need a quote.

Astus wrote:
I'm sure you know a few yourself.

"For what is isolated cannot be defiled and purified, what is empty cannot be defiled or purified, and what is isolated and empty cannot know full enlightenment. Nor can one get at any dharma outside emptiness which has known full enlightenment, which will know it, or which does know it."
(PP8000 22.2)

"Conditioned generation is the place of enlightenment, because ignorance and so forth through old age and death, are all unexhausted. The afflictions are bodhi, because of understanding according to actuality.
Sentient beings are the place of enlightenment, because of understanding no-self.
All dharmas are the place of enlightenment, because of understanding the emptiness of the dharmas."
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 4, BDK p 100)

"Good sons, all hindrances are none other than ultimate enlightenment. Whether you attain mindfulness or lose mindfulness, there is no non-liberation. Establishing the Dharma and refuting the Dharma are both called nirvana; wisdom and folly are equally prajna; the method that is perfected by bodhisattvas and false teachers is the same bodhi; ignorance and suchness are not different realms; morality, concentration and wisdom, as well as desire, hatred and ignorance are all divine practices; sentient beings and lands share the same dharma nature; hell and heaven are both the Pure Land; those having Buddha-nature and those not having it equally accomplish the Buddha's enlightenment. All defilements are ultimately liberation. The reality-realms's ocean-like wisdom completely illumines all marks to be just like empty space. This is called 'the Tathāgata's accordance with the nature of enlightenment."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/sutra_of_perfect_enlightenment.html, ch 6)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2016 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Your citations from the MMK don't say that. They merely state that afflictions are not ultimately real.

Astus wrote:
I cited the MMK only to give something from Nagarjuna related to the topic. But practically the quote backs up with reasoning what the sutras say on the matter, since once the afflictions are seen to be without substance, there is nothing to do about them and they are equal to enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2016 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: Difference views on fetters and kilesas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Mahayana view is that afflictions are enlightenment, simply as they are: empty, ungraspable, and inconceivable.

Affliction, action, the body,
The agent, and the result
Are all like a city of scent-eaters,
Like an illusion, and like a dream.
(MMK 17.33)

Chapter 23 of MMK deals with afflictions in depth. Translation is from "Ornament of Reason" (v 1-4, 21-25).

It is taught that desire, anger, and stupor
Originate in dependence on thought.
Their arising depends
On the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken.
That which originates in dependence
On the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken
Cannot be due to its own nature.
Hence, the afflictions are not real.
The existence or nonexistence of the self
Is not established in any way.
How can the existence or nonexistence
Of the afflictions be established without it?
The one to which the afflictions belong
Is not in any way established.
When they do not pertain to anything at all,
The afflictions cannot exist in any way either.

...

If there is a self, something clean,
Something permanent, and something delightful,
The apprehending of self, clean, permanent, and delightful
Are not mistakes. 
If there is no self, nothing clean,
Nothing permanent, and nothing delightful,
There cannot be any absence of self, anything unclean,
impermanent, and painful.
As error in this way ceases,
Ignorance comes to an end.
As ignorance ceases,
Formations and so forth end.
If someone’s afflictions
Are existent by nature,
How can they be eliminated?
Who can eliminate the existent?
If someone’s afflictions
Are nonexistent by nature,
How can they be eliminated?
Who can eliminate the nonexistent?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Essence of Chan
Content:
Alex123 said:
What is the exact difference between abiding in a certain state, vs not abiding in that state?

Astus wrote:
Whether one adds the idea that makes a state one's identity, considering it an actual state, existence, being; or not.

Good friends, one’s enlightenment (one’s Way, dao) must flow freely. How could it be stagnated? When the mind does not reside in the dharmas, one’s enlightenment flows freely. For the mind to reside in the dharmas is called ‘fettering oneself.’ If you say that always sitting without moving is it, then you’re just like Śāriputra meditating in the forest, for which he was scolded by Vimalakīrti!
...
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.
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK Edition, p 43)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2016 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: how do I know if I am progressing in Buddhism?
Content:
ShineeSeoul said:
I am trying to practice Buddhsim, but I have feeling like what I am doing is useless?

Astus wrote:
Progress can be measured in several ways. One direct method is to see if you have more peace, compassion, and mindfulness in your daily life. There are also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81
that you should look out for in cultivating. On the bodhisattva path there are also the six paramitas as both practices and qualities to cultivate, and there are the http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/158325 as a description of the path (on that you can find more in English in the introduction of Buswell's Tracing Back the Radiance), but using the http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/stages-and-path is also fine and there are more translations available in English.

ShineeSeoul said:
I am trying to Chant Buddhas name everyday, and bow 3 time.....what else I am supposed to do? is this enough?

Astus wrote:
What is your goal? There are various extensive meditation manuals out there that you can use even on your own, like http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 3rd, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: "The Flat Truth" by Chogyam Trungpa
Content:
tomschwarz said:
"If you personally want to understand and realize the teachings, you will have no understanding at all if you don’t sit and practice meditation.

Astus wrote:
What meditation? One can sit for a hundred years and not understand a thing. Even dying while seated is pointless. To see the truth of the Dharma takes only a single moment of insight of the nature of one's present experience.

Here are some illustrations:

O Śāriputra, you need not take this sitting [in meditation] to be sitting in repose. Sitting in repose is to not manifest body and mind in the triple world—this is sitting in repose. To generate the concentration of extinction while manifesting the deportments—this is sitting in repose. Not to relinquish the Dharma of enlightenment and yet manifest the affairs of [ordinary] sentient beings—this is sitting in repose. To have the mind neither abide internally nor locate itself externally—this is sitting in repose. To be unmoved by the [sixty-two mistaken] views yet cultivate the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment—this is sitting in repose. Not to eradicate the afflictions yet enter into nirvana—this is sitting in repose.
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 3, BDK Edition, p 85)

When that buddha was seated on the terrace of enlightenment after having defeated Māra’s army, he tried to obtain highest, complete enlightenment, yet the Dharma of the buddhas did not appear to him. In this way, even after having sat cross-legged for one to ten intermediate kalpas, undisturbed in body and mind, the Dharma of the buddhas still did not appear to him.
(Lotus Sutra, ch 7, BDK Edition, p 114-115)

A monk asked Koyo Seijo, "Daitsu Chisho Buddha sat in zazen for ten kalpas and could not attain Buddhahood. He did not become a Buddha. How could this be?"
Seijo said, "Your question is quite self-explanatory."
The monk asked, "He meditated so long; why could he not attain Buddhahood?"
Seijo said, "Because he did not become a Buddha."
( http://www.zenguide.com/zenmedia/books/content.cfm?t=the_gateless_gate&chapter=09 )

During the Kai Yuan era of the Tang dynasty [713–41] there was a novice monk called Mazu Daoyi who constantly practiced Zen meditation upon Mt. Heng. Nanyue knew that Daoyi was a great vessel for the Dharma, and once walked up to him and said, “What does Your Worthiness intend to do by sitting in meditation?”
Mazu said, “I intend to become a buddha.”
Nanyue then picked up a piece of tile from the ground and began grinding it on a rock.
Daoyi then asked, “What are you trying to make by grinding that?”
Nanyue said, “I’m grinding it to make a mirror.”
Daoyi said, “How can you make a mirror by grinding a tile on a rock?”
Nanyue said, “If you can’t make a mirror by grinding a tile on a rock, how can you become a buddha by sitting in meditation?”
Daoyi said, “What is the correct way?”
Nanyue said, “It can be compared to an ox pulling a cart. If the cart doesn’t move, do you strike the cart or strike the ox?”
Daoyi didn’t answer.
Nanyue then said, “Are you sitting in order to practice Zen, or are you sitting to be a buddha? If you’re sitting to practice Zen, then know that Zen is not found in sitting or lying down. If you’re sitting to become a buddha, then know that Buddha has no fixed form. With respect to the constantly changing world, you should neither grasp it nor reject it. If you sit to become a buddha, you kill Buddha. If you grasp sitting form then you have not yet reached the meaning.”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 54)

Jiufeng served as Shishuang’s attendant. When Shishuang passed away, the congregation invited the head monk to become abbot.
Jiufeng said to the congregation, “First, he must show that he understood our late master’s great meaning, then he can become abbot.”
The head monk said, “What teaching do you mean?”
Jiufeng said, “Our late teacher said, ‘Desist! Become barren autumn ground! Have one thought for ten thousand years. Be a cold dead tree. Be an ancient incense dish. Be a blank strip of white silk.’ Not asking about the rest, what is a ‘strip of white silk’?”
The head monk said, “This teaching illuminates a matter of form.”
Jiufeng said, “Fundamentally, you don’t comprehend our late teacher’s meaning.”
The monk said, “You don’t approve of my answer? Then light a stick of incense, and if I don’t go before it is burned up, then you can say I don’t understand our late master’s meaning.”
A stick of incense was then lit, but before it burned down, the head monk died.
Shishuang patted the head monk’s body on the back and said, “Dying while sitting or passing away while standing isn’t it. You didn’t see our late master’s meaning even in your dreams.”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 258-259)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 30th, 2016 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism
Content:
Queequeg said:
Though you realize that by pointing out a continuous lineage, you're kind of bearing out that at least Tiantai school has a self conscious identity... which is at least one exception to the rule you seem to be overstating.

Astus wrote:
Tiantai came up with the lineage idea even before Chan, so I would not say that it lacks a sense of identity. However, the extent and meaning of that identity is another matter. For instance, my source 1 for Mingzhe is a lineage of the current abbot of Guanhaisi (a temple in Dalian). However, abbot Yihui is not only the 46th ancestor of Tiantai, but also the 46th of Linji and the 49th of Caodong. And as for what sort of instructions he gives to people is another matter. Just consider how Ven. Xingyun is a member of the Linji lineage, but Foguangshan is primarily a school of Humanistic Buddhism, and as such they include all 8 schools of Chinese Buddhism.

Queequeg said:
But to suggest that Chinese Buddhism is and always has been an ecumenical melange within a common monastic system is also not true.

Astus wrote:
That's not exactly what I meant. Certainly, individual monks and certain groups formed a type of affiliation with specific teachings and practices, and from that emerged an identity. However, the monastic system is bigger than a few literati monastics arguing about abstract ideas. Before the establishment of the public monastery system in the Song dynasty, inheritance was a matter of tonsure lineage, not association with any school. And when the public monasteries were fixed to lineages (Chan, Jiao (teaching), Lu (Vinaya)), it also meant stronger state control, and the fight for sponsorship, hence the sectarian outlook. (source: How Zen Became Zen, p 37-40) However, I don't see how that would account for what appeared in Japan, since the Tendai and Shingon schools were set up before that, and then there was the appearance of independent Pure Land schools, something unique to Japan, and not an influence from China. Rather, it seems to me that the Japanese state exerted a stronger control over Buddhism than the Chinese central administration; but it could be something else as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 30th, 2016 at 3:36 PM
Title: Re: The real meaning of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Content:
Malcolm said:
Madhyamaka is the study of the objective state of reality.
Yogacara is the study of the subjective process of awakening.
When understood in this way, they are non-contradictory and harmonious.

Astus wrote:
That sounds like the reverse form of how they are used together, where mind only refutes external realities, and emptiness refutes the reality of mind.

At the same time, it is a fairly reductionist approach, as if the two systems were lacking in teachings for the whole path. I assume you propose this harmonisation of them with "study" standing for purely intellectual effort.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 30th, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
8
Queequeg said:
The Tiantai schools definitely had a self conscious identity, and I think the same can be said of Huayan. IIRC, in the Tang and Sung, sectarian identities were common - this is the Buddhism that was transmitted to Japan and is the reason Japanese Buddhism is characterized by sectarianism (though modern ideas of sectarianism are very different that what they had through the medieval period.)

Astus wrote:
I think it's difficult to do justice to how Buddhism functioned in China, because in Buddhist studies the Japanese model of distinct schools has a strong influence. For instance, neither a Huayan, nor a Pure Land school existed in China. Even talking about a Chan school before the Song is complicated. As for Tiantai, I have not really looked into its history.

Queequeg said:
My point stands - if there is a Tiantai school in China now, its a revival, not a continuous lineage. To my knowledge there is no line of abbots at Mt. Tiantai claiming a continuous lineage back to Zhiyi.

Astus wrote:
I could find you two monks connected with a living Tiantai lineage. There could be more of course, but there's practically nothing in English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sik_Kok_Kwong (1919–2014)
Mingzhe http://www.nanshanchansi.com/?q=mingzhe (1925-2012), 45th patriarch, a disciple and heir of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Xu (source http://www.guanhaisi.com/index.php/Fmcc/cc_tt, http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b9fb39c0101ef88.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 29th, 2016 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: Result of Karma
Content:
Norden said:
This is what I don't understand. Killing will result in short life, stealing will result in poverty. So how is that impossible to know the precise result of karma? Is it possible for a murderer experience poverty as the result of his killing? Again, if it's not possible, then why it's said the result of karma is imponderable?

Astus wrote:
Killing happens out of anger and fear, the act strengthens those feelings and harming as a solution to get rid of those feelings. Because aggression becomes the basic approach to problems in life, life itself turns to look like a fighting pit for the person. Similarly with other actions, that through influencing the thinking influence the view and experience of life. However, there are numerous other factors in the mind that modify the perception of acts and experiences. Just like one event means many things for many people, and they all react in their own ways. That's how on the one hand there are clear consequences, and on the other it is too complicated to calculate. And there is one more very important factor, the possibility to make decisions in the present, to change one's mind, and that opens the possibility for liberation, like in the story of Angulimala.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism
Content:
Iconodule said:
Tiantai methods

Astus wrote:
Tiantai teachings

Queequeg said:
I'm curious what these terms refer to...

Astus wrote:
As an example, Shengyan uses the five identities to explain the stages of enlightenment in relation to buddha-nature and sudden awakening. Thich Thanh Tu in Keys to Buddhism gives the six stages of breath meditation as the gradual method. Ting Chen in The Fundamentals of Meditation Practice describes the six gates with breath meditation and outlines the basics of Mohezhiguan. Does that make them Tiantai teachers?

Dongyang Dehui's collection of Pure Rules (BDK edition: Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations) contains a manual for zazen (p 255-257), and there it is recommended, besides the Surangama Sutra and Zongmi's 18 volume Manual of Procedures for the Cultivation and Realization of Ritual Practice according to the Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment ( http://www.cbeta.org/result/X74/X74n1475.htm ), it is Zhiyi's zhiguan manual. So, from this we can see as well that there are no strict boundaries and no strong sectarian identities in Chinese Buddhism usually.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism
Content:
Iconodule said:
Now that I think about, I remember Ven Hsing Yun's book Only a Great Rain had some Tiantai methods in it. Not so much teaching Tiantai as a school but taking it for granted as part of Chinese Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
Exactly. If you look into Shengyan's Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, you will find Tiantai teachings there as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism
Content:
Iconodule said:
Here's something I wondered- how pronounced is Tiantai as a specific school in Chinese Buddhism today? Are there actually teachers/ monasteries explicitly advocating the Tiantai approach?

Astus wrote:
It seems to me that the answer lies in Chinese...

There are two outstanding Tiantai teachers (teacher and disciple) mentioned in English:

Dixian Guxu 諦閑古虛 (1858-1932)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Xu 倓虚 (1875-1963),there's also a book on his life https://books.google.hu/books?id=z_wTDAAAQBAJ

It should also be noted that anyone can study and practice any school of Buddhism within a monastery, so there is no need for organisations like Fo Guan Shan or Dharma Drum Mountain to call themselves Tiantai, or anything in particular for that matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
And then there is the third option. Pristine consciousness is innate. The stage of liberation is first. Vajrasattva lost his jewel, and needed to find it again.

Astus wrote:
It makes no difference if it's innate or not. As long as Vajrasattva does not know the actual place of his jewels, he's an ordinary being. Once he knows it, he's a noble one. Same story.


Malcolm said:
Buddhas don't proffer teachings like merchants displaying wares in the market. They teach according to circumstances. Since Sukhavati is so nice, easy and blissful, there is no reason at all to teach a swift path at all.

Astus wrote:
Circumstances? They teach according to the inclinations of the disciples. And again, beings in Sukhavati are not bound to that single buddha-land.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
the path is transmitted to the student if they fail to achieve buddhahood during the empowerment

Astus wrote:
What sort of thing is the path to be given to another? Or, asking in another way, what is the medium between teacher and student?

Malcolm said:
That depends on what teachings you practice, and whether they are based on mind or pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
Wisdom first needs to be attained - hence the movement from ignorance to knowledge. Then, with that knowledge, that wisdom or pristine consciousness, one can progress on. That's what happens in all paths, where one goes from ordinary being to a noble one, and from noble practitioner to a non-practitioner. Unless it is the sudden enlightenment version, where with one step one goes from ordinary to buddha.

Malcolm said:
They all use the same rhetoric, "ehi, paśya," come and see. But in reality, the eight lower vehicles are based on intellectual theories, not pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
We could say even of the 9th vehicle that it is very much loaded with theories. Does that make it then intellectual? It certainly doesn't look as simple and free from theoretical matters as Pure Land and Zen.

As Honen wrote in his http://www.jodo.org/teachings/teachings02.html:

"Even if those who believe in the nembutsu study the teaching which Shakyamuni taught his whole life, they should not put on any airs and should sincerely practice the nembutsu, just as an illiterate fool, a nun or one who is ignorant of Buddhism."

Malcolm said:
The Vajrayāna is available to us in this epoch because it is the worst possible epoch in which liberation through Dharma is possible. Even Mahāyāna teachings are not always available. For example, Maitreya will not teach Vajrayāna.

Astus wrote:
Don't buddhas know all the teachings of all the vehicles? If they do, one can learn them just by asking for them.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
They have to given in person, otherwise, there is no transmission.

Astus wrote:
What is transmitted from teacher to disciple?

Malcolm said:
They hope there is a mother, but their desperation is driven by the fact that they are not sure. It is the same with Pure Land Buddhism. They may have convinced themselves, but in reality, they will never be sure until they find themselves in Sukhavati.

Astus wrote:
If what you mean by uncertainty is that one can never know for sure whether there is a slice of cheese left in the fridge as long as one doesn't go there and opens the door, then I think it's a level of unconfirmed hope we all have to live with every day.

Malcolm said:
Direct perception is always certain. This is the difference between lower and higher vehicles in general.

Astus wrote:
How is direct perception certain? We all see that the sun goes up and down. Does the sun actually go up and down? Or do you mean that first hand experience of the validity of the teachings is better than only believing in it based on a level of theoretical confirmation? If so, then I see no difference between the vehicles, they all point to seeing the truth for oneself. At the same time, isn't it the case that in the nine vehicles scheme all that the lower vehicles assume to be direct realisations are actually false? That is, it just shows how direct perception is uncertain.

Malcolm said:
There is no suffering in Sukhavati, so rapid means are not needed there. It is similar with our situation, the more pain-free the eon in in which we live, the lower the teachings are available to us. Since there is no pain at all in Sukhavati, the path taught there is the longest one.

Astus wrote:
What do you base that idea on? Bodhisattvas are not in a hurry because they feel uncomfortable, but to liberate all the others.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 28th, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
There are no invisible forces at play in Vajrayāna —— if you think so, you have not understood anything.

Astus wrote:
That's good. Then empowerments work from a record as well as through live broadcast.

Malcolm said:
Crying out to Amitabha like a lost child can hardly be described as pratyahara and Buddhānusmṛti.

Astus wrote:
A child, when crying out, knows that there is the mother who can help. Similarly, one has faith in Amitabha to come and help.

Malcolm said:
It is not really certain at all.

Astus wrote:
Then there are no certain teachings, Pure Land or not.

Malcolm said:
These are not guarantees that these buddhas teach the short and quick path. These are listed as opportunities for gathering merit and hearing the teachings. Nothing about what teachings may be heard are mentioned.

Astus wrote:
Wouldn't a buddha teach the most beneficial and efficient method? And even if someone's karma requires the long road, that is the same situation in this life.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 27th, 2016 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is not certain. Why? There are four causes required for birth in Sukhavati: the aspiration to do so, recollection of Amitabha, accumulation of virtue and dedication of merit. All four are required, as dictated by the 19th aspiration.

Astus wrote:
The minimal requirements are faith and vow. Beyond that everything else are commendable but not necessary. On this both the Chinese and Japanese masters agree.

Malcolm said:
All of these things depend on faith in something that may or may not happen after one dies.

Astus wrote:
Same goes for rebirth in general. Not to mention all the invisible forces at play in Vajrayana, like the whole role of a guru and empowerments.

Malcolm said:
Merely crying out to Amitabha like a lost child searching for its mother is not sufficient.

Astus wrote:
Mahasthamaprapta used this comparison (Surangama Sutra, tr new BTTS, p 230, 232-233):

"Consider someone who is always thinking of another person. This second person, though, has completely forgotten about the first person. Even if these two people were to meet, they might as well not have met, and even if they were to catch sight of one another, they might as well not have seen each other. But consider two other people who always have each other in mind so much so that they will be, in lifetime after lifetime, as inseparable as a man and his shadow. Similarly, the Thus- Come Ones in all ten directions think of all beings with compassion, just as a mother always thinks of her child. If the child were to run away from home, the mother’s thinking of him will be of no use. But if the child is mindful of the mother, just as she is of him, the two will be inseparable in lifetime after lifetime. In the same way, beings who are always mindful of the Buddha, always thinking of the Buddha, are certain to see the Buddha now or in the future. They will never be far from Buddhas, and their minds will awaken by themselves without any special effort. Such people may be said to be adorned with fragrance and light, just as people who have been in the presence of incense will naturally smell sweet.
The basis of my practice was mindfulness of the Buddha. I became patient with the state of mind in which no mental objects arise. Now when people of this world are mindful of the Buddha, I act as their guide to lead them to the Pure Land. The Buddha has asked us how we broke through to enlightenment. In order to enter samādhi, I chose no other method than to gather in the six faculties while continuously maintaining a pure mindfulness of the Buddha. This is the best method."

Malcolm said:
This is not certain.

Astus wrote:
As much as the sutras are certain, so it is this certain.

Malcolm said:
This is also not certain.

Astus wrote:
Why wouldn't it be? That's what the Buddha says in the sutra, it's a feature of Sukhavati. There are even vows for those (7, 9, 23).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 27th, 2016 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, there are problems in the pure land, such as being born inside a lotus and stuck there for 18,000,000 human years.

Astus wrote:
That can happen only if one has some doubts about the Pure Land path. Besides that lotus is not itself a painful place, if somebody realises one's faults there, one can come out immediately.

That is, even if one has some doubts, one can attain birth. Not to mention those who commit all sorts of evil deeds and are totally lost in delusions.

Malcolm said:
Well, what about those who have committed the five actions which result in immediate rebirth in lower realms? They are excluded.

Astus wrote:
Actually, they are not. It states in the Contemplation Sutra that even those who commit the five worst actions can attain birth by remembering Amitabha. May read more on it from Shinran http://shinranworks.com/the-major-expositions/chapter-on-shinjin/.

Malcolm said:
Yes, after incalculable eons, the same as any other sūtra based path.

Astus wrote:
If you think there is a shorter path, then it is available in Sukhavati, simply because all beings there are free to visit any number of buddhas, not to mention Amitabha himself, and the present bodhisattvas.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 27th, 2016 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
maybay said:
Yes I do. Not as a requirement for attainment though, but as a criteria for engagement. If you fail in your practice of Dzogchen, nothing is lost. If you fail as a renunciate, you will either die or end up living a truly wretched existence. Bravery is a question of what risks you are willing to take.

Astus wrote:
Good point. That is another reason for recommending the Pure Land path over the path of sages (i.e. aryas). All who have faith in Amitabha and vows to be born there, will be born there. And once in Sukhavati, no more problems, and buddhahood is guaranteed.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 27th, 2016 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: What is Sutra Mahamudra?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Is Sutra Mahamudra something that would be viable in this situation? Even if it's not completely compatible, is it possible to engage in at all, even if it cannot be taken to the complete end result of Mahamudra? And if so, do you have any recommendations on which particular teachers would be best suited for such a presentation of Sutra Mahamudra?

Astus wrote:
The late John Crook taught not only Chan but also Mahamudra at Western Chan Fellowship. Anzan Hoshin of the White Wind Zen community has also been involved in Mahamudra teachings, and made some translations as well. On the other hand, Ken McLeod has included Zen in his Mahamudra teachings. So, I would say there is a possible connection, if one wants to make it.

If your friend just wants to learn the methods for samatha and vipasyana, he can do that from numerous sources, like http://mahamudracenter.org/. There are also live teachings around, if he wants that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 26th, 2016 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
Is there an uncommon Mahayana?

Astus wrote:
That's another term for Vajrayana in TB.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 26th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
What do you find shocking about that remark?

Astus wrote:
He has already said the same thing http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=339855#p339855:

Malcolm said:
They reject them. What else can they do? If they accept them, they have to sign on.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 26th, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Iconodule said:
Right, but how do their Zen, Tendai, etc. neighbors look at them? As eccentric cousins? As deluded weirdos? And for those Mahayana who incorporate some tantric practices, like Tendai, but aren't full-blown Vajrayana, do they see these practices as superior to sutra and, if not, what purpose do they see them as serving?

Astus wrote:
Tendai takes the secret doctrines (mikkyo) on the same level as the Lotus Sutra teachings. They are equal. But we have some members of the Tendai school who know a lot more than me to elaborate on this.

As for the others, as far as I am aware, they see Vajrayana as a less efficient teaching, just like Vajrayana sees all the others. It is only because people are often not familiar with the other teachings that they assume the doxography presented by Vajrayana is the sole truth there is. Perhaps it is not that big a surprise to say that the only people who agree with what Vajrayana presents as valid are the Vajrayana followers themselves.

Dogen has the question about Shingon raised and answered in the Bendowa. The first sentence of his reply is:

"Remember, among Buddhists we do not argue about superiority and inferiority of philosophies, or choose between shallowness and profundity in the Dharma; we need only know whether the practice is genuine or artificial."
(SBGZ, vol 1, BDK Edition, p 9)

And his closing sentences (p 10-11) in the answer:

"From these intellectual ideas emerge all sorts of flowers in space: we think about the twelvefold cycle and the twenty-five spheres of existence; and ideas of the three vehicles and the five vehicles or of having buddha[-nature] and not having buddha[-nature] are endless. We should not think that the learning of these intellectual ideas is the right path of Buddhist practice. When we solely sit in zazen, on the other hand, 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. How could those caught in the trap of words compare [with this]?"


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 26th, 2016 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Illusion
Content:
pothigai said:
If all phenomena are illusions, then what would real phenomena be?

Astus wrote:
There are a few steps to take before one can see the useful meaning of illusion in the Buddhist context.

1. One has an emotional bond with an object when it is viewed in a personal sense. That is, the difference between "a table" and "my table". It doesn't upset one if "a table" is repainted, carried away, or destroyed. It does upset one if that's "my table". Therefore, the first meaning of emptiness is the lack of self, lack of personal essence.

2. One can have a personal connection with an object only if there is actually an object to relate to. What is called an object, however, is simply a name, a concept, and not any actual physical or mental experience. So, there is a difference between seeing colours and forms, and the name "table".

3. Because there is no personal relation and nothing to relate to, the common view that there is such a thing as "my table" is an illusion.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 at 5:24 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
That is indeed the only viable question...

Astus wrote:
If popularity is an acceptable measure, then faith based methods are the best, primarily faith in Amitabha and Sukhavati. Related to that are the ritual practices and chanting, where many people can participate. Studying the scriptures is probably the second most popular option, considering the many Buddhist education institutions. Third on the list might be the reclusive lifestyle with an emphasis on meditation.

As for a path that actually works, I think it's always been the same: discipline, concentration, insight.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 at 6:56 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
That is indeed the only viable question...

Astus wrote:
And how can it be answered? People stick to any path that fits their conditioning, and it has nothing to do with the usual claims of efficacy, velocity, and superiority.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
No, that's actually a question. Personally, I'm not even sure there is a viable question there.

Astus wrote:
Then isn't the question simply what a viable path is?

Queequeg said:
Your stab at "one true path"?

Astus wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
What is the teaching that is efficacious in the Degenerate Age...?

Astus wrote:
That is a question used only as a preamble before introducing one's own ideas of the "only true path".

Queequeg said:
By definition, all provisional teachings are not efficacious.

Astus wrote:
All teachings show the same and single idea of how the ending of attachment is liberation from suffering and delusion. As I see it, that's what the one vehicle really means.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
But, those quote only confirm the general tendency of decline through the Former and Middle Days...

Astus wrote:
Then see how even Mahakashyapa complained about monks at the time of the Buddha:

"What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.013.than.html )

A study on the early scriptures' words on the decline of Dharma: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1.10-Dharma-ending-age-piya-proto.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 24th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
I'd caution, though, that in the Lotus Schools the Lotus Sutra is not just a book but the awakening of Buddhas itself; the Buddha's own wisdom and action.

Astus wrote:
The same applies to some other sutras as well. Also, I think the Lotus Sutra itself is somewhat explicit on how "Lotus Sutra" means enlightenment.

"Subhūti, all of the buddhas and all of their teachings of peerless perfect enlightenment spring forth from this sūtra."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 8)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 24th, 2016 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
“It is not only the people who live during the Buddha’s lifetime who obtain great benefits. In the last five-hundred-year period, the sublime way will spread and benefit humankind far into the future.”
-Zhiyi
In these passages, Lotus Sutra = Ekayana = true teaching = sublime way.

Astus wrote:
I guess you are aware that a good number of sutras talk about the "later ages", and elevate themselves in making statements about themselves, just like in the Lotus Sutra.

"But if there is someone five hundred years hence who is able to hear this scripture, and believe, understand, and commit it to memory, then this person will be most rare."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 14)

There are even texts discussing the end times: http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra10.html. But although all the sutras will disappear, the http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra25.html will remain for another hundred years:

"In times to come, the Dharma will be annihilated. Out of lovingkindness and compassion, I will specially save this sūtra and make it stay for a hundred years more. Sentient beings that encounter this sūtra will all be delivered as they wish."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 24th, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
So, is it easier for an Atheist to relate to Buddha Dharma than a Deist?

Astus wrote:
Is it easier for an annihilationist than an eternalist? Buddhism has elements for both that are harder and that are easier. Perhaps it is easier for those who believe in some sort of eternalism, because that's the type of view Buddhists had to contend with usually, and there are only a few cases where they argued against the carvakas.

Queequeg said:
I'm not sure the idea of the degeneration of Dharma is just a Golden Age delusion. Its based on the arising and perishing of phenomena. There is more to it - some remarkable observations about the passing of teachings and traditions over generations - the proverbial Telephone Game through the ages.

Astus wrote:
It rather seems to be the common human experience that things were better in the old times. There's also the general phenomenon of elevating the people of the past to saintly levels, while our present situation always seems like the worst ever. Just consider how a thousand years ago Buddhist teachers considered their times totally degenerate, and then those 500 years later thought about those before them as great times but theirs as crap.

Here are two quotes from the Tang era, that is generally considered by the Zen tradition to be the "golden age".

Pei Xiu (791–864):

Therefore, while among the followers of all the [Chan] lineages there have been awakened people, nevertheless, each [lineage] rests in its own practices, [and so] the flexible are few and the limited numerous. For several decades the teachings of the [Chan] masters has increasingly declined. They have taken their transmissions as doors-and-windows [separate sects], each opening outward in its own way.
(Preface to the Chan Prolegomenon, in Zongmi on Chan, p 193, tr J. L. Broughton)

Fayan Wenyi (855-958):

People of recent times take a lot lightly. They may enter communes, but they are lazy about pursuing intense inquiry. Even if they develop concentration, they do not select a true master; through the mistakes of false teachers, like them they lose direction to the ultimate.
...
In recent generations, Zen teachers have lost the basis; students have no guidance. They match wits egotistically and take what is ephemeral for an attainment. Where is the heart to guide others? No longer do we hear of knowledge to destroy falsehood. Caning and shouting at random, they say they have studied Te-shan and Lin-chi; presenting circular symbols to each other, they claim they have deeply understood Kuei-shan and Yang-shan.
(Ten Guidelines for Zen Schools, in Five Houses of Zen, tr T. Cleary)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 23rd, 2016 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Lists of buddha names in sutras?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is a sutra "The Buddha Proclaims the Names of Buddhas Sutra" ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T14n0440 ), that was supposed to have been translated to English (see: http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/523/vbs523p026.pdf, http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/521/vbs521p028.pdf ), but I couldn't find it. That sutra is 12 fascicles, but the one following it in the Taisho canon with an identical title is 30 fascicles. And there are other, shorter sutras giving lists of buddha names.

Besides that, if you search for names from the Amitabha Sutra like Sumeru Lamp Buddha (須彌燈佛), or Most Victorious Sound Buddha (最勝音佛), they appear only in other texts giving lists of names, like the above sutras, or the Thousand and Five Hundred Buddha Names in the Ten Directions Sutra ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T14n0442 ).

For instance Sun Birth Buddha (日生佛) appears in T440 (12 fascicles Buddha Names Sutra) in fascicle 11, simply as "Namo Sun Birth Buddha". And in that fascicle only, there are 1119 other "Namo ... Buddha", and that's all there is. I assume the reason behind reciting the names of buddhas (they usually do the https://kongmu.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/88-buddhas/ ), is a form of meritorious activity, and extended version of buddhanusmrti. But there might be more.

If you look at a commentary ( http://www.ymba.org/books/mind-seal-buddhas/explanation-text/text-transmission or http://www.cttbusa.org/amitabhacommentary/amitabha15.htm ), they don't bother giving explanations and stories for each names. In the sutra itself they serve as buddhas who testify for Amitabha's and Sukhavati's greatness.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 23rd, 2016 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles and their elimination - The Degenerate Age
Content:
Queequeg said:
I wonder if the decline in religious affiliation and growth in atheism is a sort of rejection of milk?

Astus wrote:
It makes little difference whether one believes there is or there is no God. What matters is the everyday thinking and actions. Switching Christian folklore to materialist-consumerist folklore are equally mundane, superficial, and naiv ideas about life that one rarely every even thinks about.

Queequeg said:
In both Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism there is an idea that in a time marked by overall decline in standards of ethics, morality, religion, etc. the real, most profound teachings of Buddhism will spread.

Astus wrote:
I don't know about the spread of profound teachings (I guess it's a Tibetan idea), but the concept of the decline of Dharma is just the usual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age myth.

Queequeg said:
I wonder if its the breakdown in the perpetuation of (false) views that permits people open to the most profound teaching to arise, free of the fetters that hold people of previous generations back?

Astus wrote:
Don't think so. There are always a few people open to new ideas, and the rest either don't care or like to hear things in the way that sounds assuring of their existing beliefs.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 23rd, 2016 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Result of Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are two major speeches by the Buddha on karma in the Majjhima Nikaya. In http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html he gives the general effects of specific actions. In http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.than.html he shows how causes and effects are a complicated matter, and one should not fall into simple generalisations. There is another important teaching, the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html, where the Buddha refutes the Jain idea of the fatalist interpretation of karma, and the idea that asceticism can purify past karma.

In the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html the Buddha lists a number of topics that are not only worthless, but even harmful to ponder about:

'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

The reason such questions are wrong is that they all involve one or another sort of self view. And the reason for the teaching of karma is that by seeing the consequences of bodily, verbal, and mental actions, one avoids harmful and cultivates beneficial actions. Then, through wholesome acts one can attain a level of peace and joy, and there it becomes possible to cultivate a tranquil mind, then with a tranquil mind one can attain insight, thus with insight one gains liberation. On the other hand, to take the teaching of karma as a theoretical truth to analyse, one can only fall into confusion and wrong views.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 21st, 2016 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Single Stream of Consciousness and Rebirth
Content:
Anders said:
How is are emanations not a splitting of consciousness?

Astus wrote:
Only we can think that a bodhisattva has a body and mind. The bodhisattva does not have such ideas.

Anders said:
How do 100 emanations avoid the issue about karma of a single being ripening in multiple ones?

Astus wrote:
The short answer: it's magic.

The long answer: there are two kinds of rebirth (二種生死). For deluded beings it is fragmented rebirth (分段生死), that is, birth from body to body, but for bodhisattvas it is inconceivable transformation rebirth (不思議變易生死), because it is generated purely by compassion and vows. The second type is also called mind made body (意成身, manomayakaya), and transformation body (變化身, nirmanakaya). See: Cheng Weishi Lun, Wei Tat p 609-611 / Cook BDK p 276 / http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T31n1585_008#0045a11.

Anders said:
Also, how can a partless dharma be dependedly arisen?

Astus wrote:
Dharmas are basic categories, so they are technically partless. Even the physical elements of earth, etc. are singular. On the other hand, they are all fabricated (samskara) and conditioned (samskrta), except space, the cessations, and suchness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 21st, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Single Stream of Consciousness and Rebirth
Content:
Iconodule said:
But that would mean the mind-stream can be identified as a self which would undermine the basic Buddhist critique of self.

Astus wrote:
Yogacara teaches exactly that. The manas (also called klista-manas-vijnana, i.e. defiled-mind-consciousness) continually and incessantly grasps the alayavijnana as the self, and together they form the mind stream that stops only with enlightenment. That is also their explanation for how the mistaken concept of self persists even during states of unconsciousness and such.

On the other hand, it is not necessary to posit a mind stream - although we find it in both Mahayana and Theravada schools as a generally accepted theory. But if you take a look at how the idea of a mind stream developed, it is secondary to the teaching of rebirth and karma. That is, individual karma is a given and is a primary teaching, while the explanations are diverse and secondary. Therefore the question of splitting streams is based on a wrong approach to the matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 21st, 2016 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Single Stream of Consciousness and Rebirth
Content:
Iconodule said:
I've read and heard a fair amount of Buddhist teaching, but one question I don't recall hearing an answer to is this: Between rebirths there is a single stream of consciousness, so one death leads to one rebirth in one of the six realms depending on the karmic orientation. Why does this mindstream not split up and constitute in several different births? What keeps it from merging with other mindstreams?

Astus wrote:
The mind stream is an attempt to explain rebirth without self. However, rebirth and karma applies only to those who are attached to the concept of self. Since a self is always unitary, there is no splitting into two selves.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 19th, 2016 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: How to move from selfishness to happiness
Content:
Astus wrote:
If one approaches selflessness in the mundane way, it can give good results, but also lot of frustrations. It is as faulty as anything in life. The bodhisattva's great compassion is fundamentally different, because it is based on liberating wisdom (prajnaparamita), that is, the realisation of the conditioned, impersonal, and insubstantial nature of the entire world and all the beings in it. So, to move from selfishness one should see that there is no self to be obsessed about, also there are no others to worry about. Then one can be naturally and fully permeated by the immeasurable states.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 19th, 2016 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Zen events and small children?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Depends on what counts as a Zen event. As I have seen at a Chinese temple, children are no problem. However, since the people were almost exclusively Chinese and Vietnamese, it is a different style than Western convert communities, where the Buddhist activity consists almost exclusively of sitting silently after a minimal chanting.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Reception of Japanese Buddhism in China
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are recent historical reasons that I doubt Japanese Buddhism can expect any welcome in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule.

Ven Shengyan studied in Japan, and was a disciple of a Sanbo Kyodan teacher as well. But as for his teachings on Buddhism, I don't see any Japanese influence.

I remember someone mentioning that Shingon has some active groups in Taiwan.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 17th, 2016 at 6:03 PM
Title: Re: is Cheontae/Tendai Seon/Zen and Pureland is the same?
Content:
Iconodule said:
My understanding is that the sharp sectarian divisions of Japanese Buddhism have a lot to do with the way the Japanese government, early on, required the Buddhist sects to be separate and each receive a certain number of ordinands each year.

Astus wrote:
The strong separation of schools was established in the Tokugawa era through the enforcement of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danka_system, as part of the general classification of Japanese society, and a defensive measure against the spread of Christianity. For instance check this essay: http://www.columbia.edu/~wtd1/w4030/sjt/Ch33.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 17th, 2016 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: How to study Mahayana?
Content:
Temicco said:
Regarding Indo-Tibetan Mahayana, it seems I would just read everything I can get my hands on from the four tenet schools, especially primers written by people already familiar with the material. Is that enough? What order would I do it in and what texts in particular?

Astus wrote:
Go with the lamrim works. They give good summaries. Jamgon Kongtrul's http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Treasury_of_Knowledge is really a treasury of knowledge.

Temicco said:
I don't really know what to do for East Asian Mahayana besides reading some of the main sutras -- there seems to be less of a shared basis between the schools. Is this true? I've read the Awakening of Faith, but that seems to be mainly a Dhyaana school thing.

Astus wrote:
The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana is one of the most fundamental and influential texts in EAB. Here are some online resources covering numerous subjects.

Ven Xingyun: http://hsingyun.org/books/core-teachings/, http://www.fgsitc.org/see-publications/

Ven Shengyan: http://www.108wisdom.org/html/OTH_03.pdf, http://chancenter.org/cmc/publications/free-literature/


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
People from any religion can have a realization, I just believe Buddhism to be most conducive to awakening.

Astus wrote:
No religion agrees with that idea, unless you consider things like Theosophy a religion.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
wuyouxianren said:
I would love to have a debate on this topic, at the same time, however, I believe that there needs to be consequences for whoever loses the debate, for example, if I lose, I would commit myself to giving up all my wrong and/or unjustified views, at least those directly related to this debate, and would never, during my life time and anywhere and in any form, advocate them again.

Are you willing to make the same commitment? If yes, then we can move into the next steps of, for example, setting up and/or discussing the debate rules.

Astus wrote:
I'm open for a debate with the possibility of being proven wrong, however, I don't see how the conditions of conviction can be satisfyingly delineated. As for debating the rules of debating, that's a whole different topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
If you used those terms in a non-traditional way, they sometimes refer to the idea of True Nature, rather than a creator god or an individual soul. Like I said, people use a lot of terms to refer to the perception of reality.

Astus wrote:
There are examples for that.

AlexMcLeod said:
Mostly just to not be thrown out of their society for blasphemy.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean Indonesia?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
I suppose that depends on how you are using those terms. In the common usage, no, they would not be considered either Ultimate or exempt from analysis.

Astus wrote:
In what way would they be inarguable?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Is that non-conceptual wisdom immune from analysis?

Astus wrote:
As a concept, no. As an experience, yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Malcolm said:
That's not what I am talking about.

Astus wrote:
Then please clarify it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The term "ultimate" simply means an object of an undeceived cognition, for example, the direct perception of emptiness.

Astus wrote:
That is non-conceptual wisdom, where there is no view to analyse.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Ultimate is merely a shorthand term some people use for Ultimate Reality. Or True Nature, or I've heard a bunch of other colorful phrases people use to describe it.

Astus wrote:
In that way, even God and Atman can be exempt from analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Malcolm said:
That is just a lot of conceptuality.

Astus wrote:
What isn't?

Malcolm said:
Anyone can see buddhanature, they just have to have the method.

Astus wrote:
E.g. "zazen is entering directly into the ocean of buddha-nature and manifesting the body of the Buddha" ( http://antaiji.org/en/classics/english-zazen-yojinki/ )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Malcolm said:
However, the point is that the Buddha's path is not only about freedom from negative qualities. It is also about the attainment of positive qualities, such as the four fearlessness, the eighteen unshared qualities of a Buddha and so on.

Astus wrote:
I don't deny those.

Malcolm said:
So while it is true that the motive for the attainment of these positive qualities is in order to liberate other sentient beings, they are also positive in their own right, apart from that motivation.

Astus wrote:
They are positive, because they help in accomplishing one's own and others' liberation. What could be called positive on its own right is freedom/enlightenment itself.

Malcolm said:
The negative view of awakening that you consistently portray also shortens one's lifespan.

Astus wrote:
The buddha-nature is already perfect with all the qualities of buddhahood. The reason buddha-nature is not seen is grasping appearances. Once that mistaken identification is gone, the buddha-mind can manifest.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Bakmoon said:
If you mean that our emphasis should be on the soteriological effectiveness of the teachings rather than taking them as a way of fashioning more and more views for ourselves

Astus wrote:
That is exactly the point. That all the truths in Buddhism serve a purpose, they are not good because they are true, but because they deliver beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Malcolm said:
I would say that is the essence of the Hinayān̄a path. But the Mahāyāna path also includes the attainment of omniscience.

Astus wrote:
What is the reason for attaining omniscience? Isn't it to liberate all beings from suffering?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As always, I disagree.

Astus wrote:
What do you say about the purpose of the Buddha's teachings as being for liberation from suffering?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 16th, 2016 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
If it is truly the Ultimate, it is immune because the Ultimate beyond description or analysis.

Astus wrote:
What makes something the ultimate?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 15th, 2016 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
conebeckham said:
a positive expression of an Ultimate, which is certainly religious, and which is at least partly an object of faith, immune to the analysis of Madhyamaka.

Astus wrote:
Is it immune because it is an object of faith?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 15th, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There is definitely truth which can be distinguished from delusion.

Astus wrote:
And that truth, just as you say, is that all things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal. However, they are truths in the sense as something to learn and contemplate, so that the imagined attributes of appearances as stable, satisfying, and personal are removed. They are not truths that one has to uphold just because the Buddha said so. This is expressed in Mahayana with the teaching that even emptiness is empty, and not a substance. In other words, the truths are all skilful means with practical value.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 15th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Matt J said:
I think this is a false dichotomy. Once you see the truth with clear insight, then you gain freedom from dissatisfaction.

Astus wrote:
What truth is that?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 15th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
wuyouxianren said:
So, when you told others "Just put to rest all views", you were actually advocating views of your own, and even stronger ones; in other words, you are teaching others what you yourself have not been able, or are simply not willing, to do. Am I correct?

Astus wrote:
All teachings are views. However, there is a difference between views that only create further views, and views that eliminate views.

wuyouxianren said:
Next, would you elaborate where these statements, "No truth, only pain" and "No need to search for truth", come from? In particular, are they the Buddha's original teaching? Or are they the faithful representation or interpretation of such a teaching? If yes, what are your original sources? If not, would you briefly justify these statements based on Buddha's original teaching? And in particular, would it be more wrong or harmful to claim "No pain, only truth" than "No truth, only pain"?

Astus wrote:
"No truth, only pain" - that's simply a title. As for what it refers to has been explained already.
"No need to search for truth" - that is from a Chan text, but it goes back to teachings found in the sutras, like in chapter 6 of the http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html: "If even my correct teachings are to be abandoned, how much more incorrect teachings?".

wuyouxianren said:
Lastly, when you made such a claim as "No truth, only pain" or "No need to search for truth", were you aware of what kind of audience you were addressing? Or were you aware of the fact that traditionally there is a difference of emphasis between the Mahayana and Theravada teachings?

Astus wrote:
This is a public forum.

wuyouxianren said:
Can the Buddha's teaching be always explained, or re-taught, in a fully consistent, and therefore more convincing, way? If yes, why do we need to choose a less consistent or even self-contradictory way?

Astus wrote:
The Buddha's teachings have always been repeated and reformed ever since his disciples began to teach. As for the success of a teaching, it is measured by the realisation attained by the student.

wuyouxianren said:
If the Buddha is the ultimate authority of his teaching, would not it be a safer and better approach to have the so-called Chan Masters, together with their practices, to be critically examined rather than simply accepted or even blindly followed?

Astus wrote:
Chan is in agreement with the Buddha's teachings. If you want to debate that, just open a topic for it.

wuyouxianren said:
Would not it make more sense to first remove one's various wrong views and replace them with the Buddhist right views, and then talk of getting rid of these right views when one has moved into the proper stage of his Buddhist practice?

Astus wrote:
That's what normally happens.

wuyouxianren said:
And how can a person talk of giving up his swimming skills, or even refusing to have learned them at all, before he has swam across the river? Or how can one talk of destroying the boat or bridge even before he builds them?

Astus wrote:
As the Zen saying (from Record of Linji, p 38, tr Sasaki) goes: "Though gold dust is valuable, in the eyes it causes cataracts." Why keep building sand castles, when one could as well just stop?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 14th, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of mind a fiction?
Content:
Temicco said:
I think it would be a bit silly to think that what's going on in Tibetan ngo sprod is any different from what's going on in some of the gong-ans.

Astus wrote:
In TB they give such introduction regularly, in a set format. That does not happen in Zen, you cannot go to such a programme. And even you can only compare it to some koans, that is, stories. In TB it's not just in stories, it's what they do.

Temicco said:
Does it really matter that Chan didn't reify this into a method?

Astus wrote:
Chan is a direct path. No methods, just see nature and become buddha. What nature? That there is nothing to see. How do you see that? Just sit and observe how everything comes and goes, and there is nothing to do about it. This is not complicated at all. At the same time, not even the buddhas can make you see it. You have to do it yourself. The approach in Vajrayana is somewhat different.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 14th, 2016 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Vasana said:
There is no freedom from dissatisfaction without clear-insight.  The goal posts are not the goal but you need them to know where to aim.

Astus wrote:
Wisdom is part of the path. So are concentration and discipline.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 14th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of mind a fiction?
Content:
Temicco said:
Chan is all about the nature of mind. In what way do you propose it differs from the latter two?

Astus wrote:
Zen's " http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/D/92 " is about seeing the nature of mind yourself, gaining a first hand experience without going through stages. In Mahamudra and Dzogchen " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing-out_instruction " means certain methods teachers use to induce an experience of the nature of mind. Although it could be said that Zen has stories where a teacher's words or actions trigger realisation in the student - and such stories exist even in sutras - it is not a formal technique.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 14th, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of mind a fiction?
Content:
Temicco said:
Why then discuss it using positive formulations? It seems potentially misleading, no?

Astus wrote:
The concept of "nature" (xing 性) has a history in China pre-dating Buddhism. See a short section on nature http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-metaphysics/#ImpDif, or for instance the opposing views of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mencius/#3 and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xunzi/#humans. Besides that, the concept also comes from India in the form of the tathagatagarbha teachings. So, it is fairly complicated why and how certain terms are used.

Temicco said:
It just throws me for a loop when the nature of mind is so frequently discussed as if it's a thing that can be cognized, even if such a view is explicitly shot down. If it's not adding anything on, then why add it on?

Astus wrote:
One has to communicate somehow. Just consider how nirvana can be easily taken to be some kind of realm or state (e.g. nirvana as dhatu, or as dharma), when it literally means extinction.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 14th, 2016 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Vasana said:
Doesn't that suppose a false dichotomy between whatever an ultimate truth is and the personal realization of how that truth applies to one's own practice and liberation or am I also missing the intention behind this thread ?

Astus wrote:
It is, as you say, a difference in focal point. If we get stuck on the question of how things really are, that is missing the point of why the teachings were given. They are not meant as statements about reality, but as instructions for liberation. Therefore, the goal is not clear insight but freedom from dissatisfaction.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
wuyouxianren said:
Thanks. So then this statement of yours, "No need to search for truth", also expresses a view. Am I right?

Astus wrote:
Yes. The decisive question is whether one simply grasps at that view, or follows the instruction and lets it all go.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Is the nature of mind a fiction?
Content:
Temicco said:
The Atthakavagga of the Sutta Nipata talks about how if you relax and don't cling, you'll reach a state where nobody can define you and nothing you experience bothers you by being there.

Astus wrote:
Which sutta?

Temicco said:
This also appears in Chan texts. The only difference between the two, really, is that Chan texts discuss the nature of mind.

Astus wrote:
No attachment is certainly the essential teaching of the Buddha, and that is also the ultimate nature of mind.

Temicco said:
So, what then of the nature of mind?

Astus wrote:
No nature is the true nature.

Temicco said:
It seems like this state can be entered

Astus wrote:
That's already a wrong approach. If there is a state to enter, it is just another delusion.

Temicco said:
Are Chan and Mahamudra really adding anything substantial to the teaching of the Sutta Nipata by discussing the nature of mind?

Astus wrote:
Probably not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa's Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra)
Content:
Astus wrote:
An older, but relevant study: https://www.scribd.com/doc/255461191/Enlightenment-by-a-Single-Means-Tibetan-Controversies-on-the-Self-sufficient-White-Remedy


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Bristollad said:
can you put it another way?

Astus wrote:
Let's take impermanence as an example. As a truth on its own, it is about affirming that all things are impermanent. Then we can debate if there are still some permanent things or not. As a truth conducive to liberation, it is about seeing for oneself that things are impermanent, and from that recognition become free from suffering. In this case, it is not a question of ultimate truth, of affirming the impermanence of everything, to convince others about it, but to gain liberation by understanding personally the meaning of the teaching of impermanence.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
tiagolps said:
I agree with that, but I still hold that that is not polytheism. Polytheism as no gradual training.

Astus wrote:
Polytheism simply means belief in many gods. Buddhism fits that. As for gradual training, all the priests, shamans, witches, etc. were trained gradually in their respective traditions and practices. For instance, one might even http://www.kokugakuin.ac.jp/english/shintostudies.html to become a Shinto priest.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
tiagolps said:
Not saying that they are not buddhist, just saying many lack understanding to differentiate between their local folk religion and buddhism. I mean look at japan, how many people who say they are buddhists actually know the basics?

Astus wrote:
It depends on what you call the basics. If you look at what the Buddha called the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/index.html, there generosity, discipline, and heavenly birth come before discussing the drawbacks and renunciation of samsara, then finally comes the four noble truths. The gradual teachings of Mahayana work in a similar fashion, and the basis for everyone are generosity, virtuous action, and accumulating merit for good results in this life and the next. Cultivating meditation and wisdom are not the basics at all. Giving alms, good behaviour, and the belief in karma and rebirth are.

And there are some differences between Buddhism and "folk religion". For instance, Buddhists do not sacrifice animals. There is actually an opposite practice, they http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=504.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Bristollad said:
I don't understand the dichotomy you are suggesting between the truth and pain, suffering, dissatisfaction
The Buddha taught four truths about suffering.

Astus wrote:
They are connected, yes. The point here is that whatever truths are discussed in Buddhism, they are to eliminate suffering. The goal as seeing reality is only the reality where no suffering can arise, it is not the sort of reality that can stand on its own.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Yes, for sure ultimately we are fully responsible for our own practice. Funnily enough though, taking full responsibility for it often means opening up and recognizing we are NOT the authority we often think we are.

Astus wrote:
There are elements we should recognise that we do not know. There are also elements we should recognise that we know. The first great step on the path is losing our doubts about the Dharma. That's not the same as knowing everything there is to know, but knowing enough to be confident in our practice. Or, as Yangshan said of this stage (Book of Serenity, case 32): "You can take the seat and wear the robe. After this, see on your own."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
wuyouxianren said:
Doe the title of your post, "No Truth, Only Pain", express a view?

Astus wrote:
Of course, anything can be a view. It is the content that differs.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
tiagolps said:
That is what I would call Folk Buddhism, which can be called polytheistic deity worship, not buddhadharma.

Astus wrote:
That is a serious reduction of followers from hundreds of millions to tens of thousands, worse than saying that only monastics are true practitioners. It also disregards a fair number of sutras that actively teach worship.

tiagolps said:
Sure, but aspiring to be born in a pure abode is different then polytheistic deity worship.

Astus wrote:
In Theravada the pure abodes (suddhavasa) are the five highest heavens of rupaloka. Other polytheist religions also teach about one or several heavens.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
tiagolps said:
Worshipping them alone won't take you to the summit, buddhahood. If it doesn't take you to buddhahood, how can it be mahayana? How can it be Vajrayana?

Astus wrote:
I don't think buddhahood is the first concern of most of the devotees, bur rather more mundane matters, like health, wealth, success, safe travel, children, good afterlife, etc. And there are particular buddhas and bodhisattvas assigned to various wishes and domains, just like in polytheist religions. But for those who aim for buddhahood, worship can do the job. That is, by attaining birth in a buddha-land.

tiagolps said:
Dharma requires more study and practice then Catholicism.

Astus wrote:
How did you measure that? Have you, for instance, compared the time it takes to master the http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM and the http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/F/151 ( http://www.cbeta.org/result/T22/T22n1428.htm )?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
the problem is, it is easy to lose a sense of basic honesty in the search to rid oneself of pain, to gain peace or whatever. The naturally tendency is to cling, including to 'peace' or 'lack of pain', which is of an within itself, a kind of pain.

Astus wrote:
Certainly, we can make an identity of anything. With the identity comes the ideology.

Johnny Dangerous said:
IMO that's a big part of the reason that a teacher. lineage etc. is so important.

Astus wrote:
That is: an authority of the right ideology should correct one's mistakes, and that is fine. My direction in this topic, however, is about seeing the veracity of the Dharma in one's personal first hand experience. One possible argument against that is how people can so easily delude themselves in many ways, therefore it is necessary to have an external supervisor. To that my answer is that people believe whatever they want anyway, and a teacher can only advise but not force. This is not (another) debate about the role of receiving instructions. It is about trusting our mindfulness and facing what we actually experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 13th, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: is Buddhism a religious faith?
Content:
smcj said:
Let me ask everybody reading this some questions: Why is my position so unpopular? What is the source of resistance to it? Isn't it possible that this deep-seated emotional and conceptual antipathy towards all things "religious" is an attachment that is an obstruction?

Astus wrote:
As far as saying that Buddhism is polytheistic, I think it is true from the beginning. And with Mahayana it has even produced its own types of deities in the form of buddhas and bodhisattvas, then with Vajrayana we also have the magical elements fully internalised.

Arguing that Buddhism is actually about inner contemplation on emptiness is taking an idealised elite form as the mainstream. And while a small number of educated monks do contemplate on emptiness, they also pray to and bow before a wide arrange of deities, perform rituals, etc., just like the majority, who, on the other hand, don't know or care about contemplating the true nature of mind and such. Same thing you can see in Catholicism, with a small number of educated monks and a big mass of devotees.

There are a number of studies out there that discuss how the worship of https://books.google.com/books?id=TtlEr3tod18C, https://books.google.com/books?id=tFcy_5UItq0C, https://books.google.com/books?id=WpyiqKZISw0C, https://books.google.com/books?id=dgo7JV9vNCQC, https://books.google.com/books?id=Pz6okTs7wdAC, etc. defined Buddhism in East Asia. And for those who do not recognise the names: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ancientsgrfx.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 12th, 2016 at 10:07 PM
Title: No Truth, Only Pain
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see a general tendency to search for the truth, to argue about the truth, to consider the truth as the final goal and measure in Buddhism. But what if we change that yardstick to pain, suffering, dissatisfaction and the lack of it? One can consult scriptures and teachers to decide what is orthodox and canonical in terms of doctrine and method. However, if the standard is one's own pain or peace, what is there to compare?

No need to search for truth,
Just put to rest all views.
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=57 )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Arya Asanga, a Third Ground bodhisattva, says in his Bodhisattvabhumi that women cannot reach annutarasamyaksambodhi.  Because they have too many mental afflictions and inferior wisdom.

During the first of the three big kalpas bodhisattvas use female bodies if they wish, but after that time period (a mere 10 to the 59th power years) the use only male bodies.  So women can become great bodhisattvas, but not full Buddhas.

See Engle's new translation The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment, pp 169-70.

Astus wrote:
The Astasahasrika says otherwise, attributing the freedom from female birth to much higher level bodhisattvas.

"Endowed with these attributes, tokens and signs a Bodhisattva should be borne in mind as irreversible from full enlightenment. Furthermore, an irreversible Bodhisattva does not pander to Shramanas and Brahmins of other schools, telling them that they know what is worth knowing, that they see what is worth seeing. He pays no homage to strange Gods, offers them no flowers, incenses, etc., does not put his trusts in them. He is no more reborn in the places of woe, nor does he ever again become a woman."
(PP 8000 17.1, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes. For example, one of Buddha's teacher taught him that meditating on 'infinite emptiness" was the highest stage of liberation, the other, that "neither perception nor nonperception' is the highest state. But these are just mental concepts upon which he focused, and he discovered that by focusing them they created paths for rebirth.

Astus wrote:
That is as you say, in a sense. However, I think it is important to note that these are experiences people can have, and that's what makes them really enticing.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point, Astus, is that each of these dhyānas is in fact a concept on which we focus, where as you treat them as if they are grades of consciousness, which they are not.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that dhyanas are not stages of mental tranquillity, but a number of conceptual focuses people may be absorbed in according to their inclination?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Your model is some strange version that does not account for this fact.

Astus wrote:
How doesn't it account for it? I simply defined the basic focus of each stage. And of course one can get stuck at any stage. Moving to the next level depends on relinquishing the previous one. At the same time, it is also possible to let go of everything and attain liberation at any given stage.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 9th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
Yup. I frankly know diddly squat about the Mahayana approach to jhana (if it's Mahayana do I call it dhyana?) but it differs significantly, right? (I know, a Gelug should know this but I don't).

Astus wrote:
The eight stages dhyana is more a Hinayana thing, and the Mahayana approach is somewhat different, more clearly connected with wisdom. However, what I was referring to here is the difference between the jhana teachings in the suttas and in the Visuddhimagga. Those who follow the Vsm consider kasina meditation to be the primary form, while it plays a marginal role in the suttas and it is practically non-existent in Mahayana.

Here is a description of http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-13.pdf from the Mahaprajnaparamita-upadesha, an important treatise in East Asia.

catmoon said:
Do I need to go back and reread your model? Is it a Mahayana model? What about the Zen people?

Astus wrote:
The model I have provided is mostly my take on the sutta teachings. As noted above, there is no Mahayana version of the eight stages model. As for Zen, dhyana goes together with wisdom, and they together refer to the essence (emptiness) and function (discernment) of the nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 9th, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: What is the ultimate good according to Mahayana and Vajrayana?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
But since the skandhas dissolve at the time of parinirvana, how can this be?

Astus wrote:
You mean remainderless (sopadishesha) nirvana, but Mahayana adds a third version: non-abiding extinction (apratishthita nirvana), and that is what the buddhas attain. Also, the eight consciousnesses transform into the four wisdoms at the attainment of buddhahood. So, there is an explanation how buddhas remain functioning.

Lazy_eye said:
Also, the Diamond Sutra tells us that "self, person, living being and lifespan" do not apply to Buddhas

Astus wrote:
They do not apply to anyone, it's just that deluded beings grasp at such mistaken concepts.

Lazy_eye said:
the recognition of a distinct Buddha can only take place in the mind of a spiritual practitioner who has not yet reached "the other shore."

Astus wrote:
That is a possible interpretation, often emphasised in Zen, that people should see that there is no buddha but their buddha-mind.

Lazy_eye said:
The spiritual practice is the cause for Amitabha to manifest, and our not being at the other shore is the reason he must manifest as a distinct being.

Astus wrote:
Amitabha is either the imagination of the practitioner, or a real being ten thousand buddha-lands away. However, everything is the creation of mind, from hells to the buddha-lands. Even the idea that "I exist" is only a concept. See http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf, question 4, p 65.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 9th, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: What is the ultimate good according to Mahayana and Vajrayana?
Content:
Vasana said:
there's a difference between a Buddha being eternal/peremanent or unceasing. What is unborn can neither cease, there's no eternalism in Mahayana. So long as there are puddles and lakes ,moons will be reflected.

Astus wrote:
A permanent entity is independent, therefore it is non-functional, hence it does not actually exist. Unceasing are causes and conditions, endless change, but there is nothing in particular that remains from one moment to the next. As for what is not born, that is not existent either.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 9th, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You mean the illusory elephant can haul wood? Bear a rider?

Astus wrote:
Unless you mean that while elephants are illusory wood and riders are real, then of course an illusory elephant is functional, otherwise it is a very bad illusion. There are also Vasubandhu's answers in Vimsatika.

I think a relevant question here is whether there is a place for teachings that account for ordinary experiences, that go gradually from one level to the next.

Gangottara inquired, "If all things are empty space, why does the World-Honored One speak of form, feeling, conception, impulse and consciousness; the [eighteen] elements; the [twelve[ entrances; the twelve links of dependent origination; the defiled and the undefiled; the pure and the impure; samsara and nirvana?"

The Buddha told Gangottara, "When I speak of a 'self', for example, althugh I express the concept by a word, actually, the nature of 'self' is inapprehensible. I speak of form, but in reality the nature of form is also inapprehensible, and so it is with the other [dharmas], up to nirvana. Just as we cannot find water in mirages, so we cannot find a nature in form, and so it is with the others, up to nirvana.
( http://www.tuvienquangduc.com.au/English/Maha/20sutra.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 9th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
Yes, one can calm the mind with a single object, but there will be no jhana without the shift to the countersign. It's quite possible to calm to mind to within an inch of absolute silence without entering jhana. This is access concentration. Jhana is qualitatively different, not just a refinement of what went before.

Astus wrote:
That is the approach of the Visuddhimagga, which is fine, but it's not the only version.

catmoon said:
This is the whole point of jhana - to take a carefully honed consciousness, this laserlike focus, and use it in the pursuit of understanding and enlightenment. One pointed concentration is worthless if it is not put to use. It would just be mental gymnastics.

Astus wrote:
As you say. Although I would use "laser like focus", more like the metaphor of calm and transparent water.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
It's because you need viccana and vittaka to change the object of meditation. And you leave those behind in the third and fourth jhanas. Some sources vary on this sequence btw.

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure about what you mean by change of object. If one starts with one object, with that one it's possible to go through the stages of calming the mind.

catmoon said:
The fourth jhana is exquisitely delicate. It is a state so fine that the merest intention to do anything, and very lightest grasp on an object of meditation, both completely disappear.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, the rupa jhanas have a specific object on what one rests the mind on, and only with the arupa jhanas one changes from specific object to a "non-object", like infinite space.

As for the progression of jhanas, it moves from holding a specific object of focus, through the enjoyment of the peace coming from one pointedness, until one arrives at an unmoving mind. So the first jhana is about returning again and again to the object, the second and third about the pleasure of the stable mind, and the fourth is just the stable mind. The formless absorptions are about abandoning the experiences as identities. So, here is my model.

catmoon said:
Access Concentration

Astus wrote:
I don't use this category. Here could be mentioned the usual requirements to begin meditation.

catmoon said:
First Jhana

Astus wrote:
Vitakka and vicara are present to establish the mind repeatedly on the object, and this is the primary element to work with, while the others are supporting factors. Piti is the joy of resting, like when one can lie down after a tiring walk. Sukha is the contentment of peace, like when one is finished with a task and there's nothing more to do. Ekaggata is the one pointedness of attention, the quality of being focused internally on the body and mind.

catmoon said:
Second Jhana

Astus wrote:
With the mind further withdrawn and stabilised, there is no need to remind oneself of the object of attention, and one is absorbed in the joy of rest, with contentment and one pointedness in the background.

catmoon said:
Third Jhana

Astus wrote:
When the more intensive joy is let go as well, one rests content within the seclusion of internally focused mind.

catmoon said:
Fourth Jhana

Astus wrote:
The feeling of contentment with peaceful abiding abandoned, there is just the one pointed mind that is unmoved by appearances.

catmoon said:
Infinite space

Astus wrote:
With the mind that is stable in peace there is no need to hold any sensory objects, thus the senses go unfocused and they rest open and unmoved.

catmoon said:
Infinite Consciousness

Astus wrote:
The attention moves from the lack of objects to the lack of senses, hence consciousness itself is unbound and uniform.

catmoon said:
Infinite Nothingness

Astus wrote:
Without object to focus on, or a specific state of mind to maintain, one comes to the experience that there is nothing at all.

catmoon said:
Neither Perception nor Non-Perception

Astus wrote:
But holding that there is nothing is still something perceived, one realises that experiencing itself is unreliable, and abandons that as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
As far as the illusion itself goes, we can say that it depends on causes and conditions, but these also cannot withstand analysis and will be found to be unproduced as well. So in the end, everything winds up being illusion, and therefore, unproduced.

Astus wrote:
The elephant is illusory, just as causality. Illusory means apparent, functional, and at the same time insubstantial, empty.

Malcolm said:
The eighteen dhātu scheme demonstrates nothing of the sort. It shows, or intends to show, that consciousnesses are a product of the meeting of a sense organ and a sense object. It it elaborated to show that experience is derived from subject and object, not that it precedes it.

Astus wrote:
I used the 18 dhatus format in a reversed way, where from consciousness comes subject and object.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: What is the ultimate good according to Mahayana and Vajrayana?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
What I'm particularly interested in, I think, is the question of whether (according to Mahayana doctrine) there is some property of awareness that can be ascribed to Buddhas who have entered parinirvana.
For example, a follower recites the nembutsu. Is Amitabha aware or cognizant of the nembutsu, or is it rather that the nembutsu activates the conditions of the vow taken long ago, and as a result the Pure Land manifests -- even though there is no actual "Amitabha" there in the sense of a being who has cognition and awareness?

Astus wrote:
The three bodies doctrine is a summary of three perspectives of buddhas. The nirmanakaya explains the story of Siddhartha. The sambhogakaya explains all the celestial buddhas. The dharmakaya explains the ultimate meaning of buddhahood as suchness. So, Amitabha is considered nirmanakaya in TB and sambhogakaya in EAB, for various reasons. In either case, it means that Amitabha is an active, living being, and that's how everyone imagines him anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
When it is understood that the illusion of an elephant is not an elephant, there is no concept of elephant to eliminate. One knows an elephant never existed where one seemed previously to appear. That elephant is self-liberated.

Astus wrote:
There is still an illusion, isn't there? Or do you mean by self-liberation a total nothingness?

Malcolm said:
But your contention is that we do not experience objects.

Astus wrote:
That doesn't sound like what I said.

Malcolm said:
But according to you, there must be a cause of that consciousness.

Astus wrote:
I think this got mixed up because of terminology. I only used the word consciousness to compare it to the 18 dhatu scheme, to show that experiences precedes subject and object. On the other hand, I debate an independent consciousness, because that is an absolutist version of subject, while even the subject itself is an abstraction from experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you subscribe to the third extreme then — that there can be something both existent and nonexistent. Because in reality, production and nonproduction are mutually exclusive.

Astus wrote:
No. Production is a concept to navigate within experiences. Non-production is a concept to eliminate attachment. The point is to be active and free at the same time. Do you consider that a contradiction?

Malcolm said:
So if I poke my finger in your eye, you will not experience my finger as an object, distinct from your eye?

Astus wrote:
Both finger and eye exist as experiences. To that basis comes all the qualifications.

Malcolm said:
If there are no objects, how can there consciousness of "something?"

Astus wrote:
Consciousness means there an instance of experience, a phenomenon. That is, an instance of seeing a vase is first a "vase-phenomenon" that is divided into a vase as object and a viewer as subject.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So, production is not real and nonproduction is real, correct?

Astus wrote:
They form a single reality together.

Malcolm said:
in order for there to be an eye consciousness, there has to be an external object, a form, of which that consciousness is aware

Astus wrote:
Not exactly. What I say is that when there is consciousness, it is consciousness of something. Even more precisely, there are only experiences, and they can be theoretically separated into subject and object, but that's an added distinction, and not something experienced. To put that into the dhatu version, there are instances of consciousness, and it can be then imagined to be objects and senses.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Then it does not any sense to say that things arise from cause and condition, because as Mañjuśrīmitra points out, they are nondual in the mind.

Astus wrote:
It is the apparent production and the ultimate non-production that are non-dual, so it is conditionality that means the absence of substance, and emptiness that exists only as illusoriness of phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Astus wrote:
...but the functioning of consciousness cannot be unconditioned, because being aware of things is a conditioned occurrence.

Malcolm said:
So in terms of conditioned occurrences, their arising, abiding and perishing must be established. So how are you going to establish this? As conventions? That is fine, but a "convention" refers to an imputation and a reification.

Astus wrote:
That seems to imply a strong difference between appearances and emptiness. Conventions (interdependence) and emptiness (insubstantiality) has to form/be a single reality (called the Middle in Tiantai teachings). But I think you as well like to emphasise the non-duality of the two truths. And that singularity, where there are appearances without establishment, where consciousness and emptiness are inseparable, is all there is. Here is an example of how that is realised for dhyana:

In the case of one who has realized the true character of dharmas, on contemplating the five hindrances, he finds that they have no inherent existence at all. He then realizes that the true character of the five hindrances is identical with the true character of dhyāna and that the true character of dhyāna is identical with that of the five hindrances. In this way the bodhisattva is able to realize that the five desires as well as the five hindrances, the dhyāna concentrations as well as their component factors—they are all of a single character. Thus, without depending on anything whatsoever, he is able to enter dhyāna absorption. It is this which qualifies as dhyāna “pāramitā.”
( http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-13.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
I think they are confusing lack of "thoughts"  with lack of ability to have an intention. An intention is all it takes to switch between mental states, and can be used in any mental state.

Astus wrote:
That is a good point. In a calm state one does not start verbalising in the usual form of internal monologue and daydreaming. At the same time, during the stages of absorption there are still the fundamental functions of mind, that is: attention (manasikara), feeling (vedana), volition (cetana), perception (sanna), and contact (phassa); or simply the four mental aggregates.

Here is a fine description of the four jhanas: http://measurelessmind.ca/anapanassatisamadhi.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Emptiness is the nature of all phenomena as well, and emptiness is of course unconditioned, but no one would complain that all things having an unconditioned nature in that sense is impossible.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means an absence, so calling a lack of something unconditioned is not a problem. It is when we come to unconditioned consciousness that needs more specifications as to what sense it is unconditioned. It is unconditioned in the form of not grasping at appearances, but the functioning of consciousness cannot be unconditioned, because being aware of things is a conditioned occurrence.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I think it is fair to say that it applies to all, because otherwise you have give a complicated explanation for why this is not said of the first six, etc.

Astus wrote:
That's like saying that to walk slower one has to walk faster first. It might be that this sutta is more of an exception in stating that he emerged from those states.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
we can't conclude that it is saying that Sariputra immediately went from one jhana to the next.

Astus wrote:
That might be so. I think there are enough references to the same sequence of the jhanas in numerous suttas to allow a general description of how it goes. And it goes by letting go first of external and emotional disturbances in order to establish the first absorption, and then gradually letting go of subtler factors to arrive at a mindful peace.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
But you have to come down a step or two to redirect the mind, then back up you go.

Astus wrote:
Why would that be so? Accessing the first jhana already requires a level of peacefulness, and then further levels are even calmer states. How would it be helpful if one had to create disturbance in order to attain a deeper tranquillity? To me that is a contradiction. But perhaps we have different things in mind here.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You apparently did not read this sutta carefully. Sariputra enters and exits each dhyāna before proceeding to the next one.

Astus wrote:
Please point me to the line you think means that.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Shifts between dhyānas cannot deliberately happen after the second dhyāna. There can only be a deliberate shift through the remaining dhyānas by exiting one and then entering another. Because of the absence of vitarka in the second dhyāna on up, we then have the notion of so called "access concentrations."

Astus wrote:
That depends on the interpretation of vitarka and vicara. Normally they are understood in this context as grabbing the object and maintaining the object of meditation. It is not about thinking about the object, but using one's attention.

For a practical description: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_Samma_Samadhi.htm
For a linguistic analysis: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/why-vitakka-doesnt-mean-thinking-in-jhana/

Also, if you look at the description in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html, Sariputra goes through the 8 jhanas, and only following nirodha-samapatti does he emerges from it and reflects. And that's quite logical, since in nirodha both feeling and perception stops, but not before that. And if you look into the other texts describing the sequence, it goes deeper and deeper, it's not that they always have to stop and go back.

Of course, what you say is a known explanation, where absorption becomes something so otherworldly and absorbed, that it is practically useless for wisdom and overly difficult (if possible at all) to attain at the same time.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Right, this kind of one pointedness never abandon vitarka and vicara. It is essentially the first dhyāna or perfect śamatha.

Astus wrote:
Not necessarily. As I read the suttas, change from one jhana to another happens by recognition that the present mental factors are troubling. Then either one realises the true nature of appearances and abandons it all (i.e. nirvana) completely, or goes to the next level. It seems logical to me that unless there is a level of awareness, such a shift from one jhana to another could not happen. So, there is indeed correct samadhi and incorrect samadhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
Ajahn Chah of all people should know better than this.

Astus wrote:
From the introduction of his collected teachings (p xi): "Ajahn Chah avoided talking about levels of attainment and levels of meditative absorption in order to counter spiritual materialism (the gaining mind, competitiveness and jealousy) and to keep people focused on the Path."

catmoon said:
The gradual calming he refers to is clearly nothing more than access concentration setlling in, and is well described in the suttas and if anyone should know this, it would be Ajahn Chah.

Astus wrote:
He mentions development of jhanas to some extent, like in Detachment Within Activity on p 298-299.

In The Path in Harmony on p 316 he talks about the dangers of deep samadhi and that one should just go with access concentration. Then on the next page:

"So, there can be right samadhi and wrong samadhi. Wrong samadhi is where the mind enters calm and there’s no awareness at all. One could sit for two hours or even all day but the mind doesn’t know where it’s been or what’s happened. It doesn’t know anything. There is calm, but that’s all. It’s like a well-sharpened knife which we don’t bother to put to any use. This is a deluded type of calm, because there is not much self-awareness. The meditator may think he has reached the ultimate already, so he doesn’t bother to look for anything else. Samadhi can be an enemy at this level. Wisdom can not arise because there is no awareness of right and wrong.
With right samadhi, no matter what level of calm is reached, there is awareness. There is full mindfulness and clear comprehension. This is the samadhi which can give rise to wisdom, one can not get lost in it. Practitioners should understand this well. You can’t do without this awareness, it must be present from beginning to end. This kind of samadhi has no danger."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
I got sent to a post in which you were talking about lack of experience leading to argumentation about definitions. If that's what you were referring to...

Astus wrote:
The point I wanted to refer to is that discussion of jhana/dhyana is a discussion of the definition of absorption, so it is theoretical regardless if somebody has or doesn't have experiences. But if you think there is a way around that, let's do it.

The second point there is my version of avoiding the problem of definitions.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
It is not separate, it just isn't affected, because the things you posit should have effect on it are not real. They can effect things in the story, but not the real. This doesn't make them separate, because stories exist in our minds, but we have power over them, not the other way around. And that is not to say that the real cannot affect the imagined. You see examples of this all the time, with story elements based on actual experiences.

Astus wrote:
If one is real and the other is unreal, that is an important difference separating them. One possible definition of reality is whether it makes some effect. That is, one can dream and imagine all sorts of things, they will not change one's everyday conditions. If there were a true nature separate from the aggregates, it would mean that such a true nature does not have the qualities of the aggregates, nor can it interact with the aggregates. If said true nature were not separate from the aggregates, then it is the aggregates, so it is affected by everything that affects the aggregates. If it were neither the same nor different, then as far as it's not the same, it is unconscious (consciousness is an aggregate), and as far as it's not different, it is affected.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
your samsaric body and mind might be fully involved, but your true nature is unaffected.

Astus wrote:
Such a separate "true nature" does not exist. Even if it existed, it wouldn't matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
This is just the kind of reductio ad absurdum I've been thinking about and fearing.

Astus wrote:
How so? It is a perfectly traditional and accepted teaching all over Mahayana. Even a meditation method. But, if what you mean is that this is too much of a jumping ahead, that might be so. Although, from a Zen point of view, dhyana goes together with wisdom.

catmoon said:
Rather than diving into THAT logical rat's nest, I think I'd far rather put it aside and return to the OP question.

Astus wrote:
Maybe you can say something on http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=336481#p336481.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Emptiness is how things are, the Tahagatagarbha is our inherent capacity or capability to see how things are.  It is all part of the same equation.

Astus wrote:
That is, buddha-nature means that we are capable of getting rid of ignorance. I think that is a basic requirement for Buddhism to make any sense, otherwise there is no path to liberation. However, this does not account for all the ink spilt on the tathagatagarbha doctrine.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 6:03 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Does this mean that jñāna is not some sort of 'thing' that is somewhere within the mind, but rather that jñāna is itself the very nature of mind itself?

Astus wrote:
The very nature of mind: "the dharmatā of the mind or the cittatā of citta".

The problematic element is that of the unconditioned awareness part. As I take it, experiences have the qualities of emptiness, awareness, and appearance. Neither of the three exists on its own. However, "unconditioned awareness" suggests a separate knower of emptiness and appearances, and that is practically a reified/objectified self/soul.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Time is not something real, therefore, this qualm does not apply [conditioned entities can only exist in time].

Astus wrote:
Time is not real, therefore conditioned entities are not real. That is clearly a liberating insight, since even body and mind are unreal. We can rest then.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
But when the movie ends, you have not been physically affected by the events of the story.

Astus wrote:
Samsara does not end, plus you're very much affected physically. Both body and mind are fully involved in life.

AlexMcLeod said:
you Know it is just a story.

Astus wrote:
If one knows that only once it's over, it cannot apply to life, unless you think it will be OK once dead, in which case you are not considering rebirth.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
First Problem

Astus wrote:
Yes, there is a problem, if unconditioned mind means that there exists a special kind of awareness separate from the normal kind. It is not a problem, if it means that the normal mind is cleansed of ignorance.

catmoon said:
Second Problem

Astus wrote:
Again, the problem of something arising happens if unconditioned mind means an object/subject, a unique awareness, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 6th, 2016 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
"How" what?

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is about seeing that appearances are without anything concrete, anything personal. If tathagatagarbha means that all beings may attain that insight, that is not the other side of wisdom, it is only a chance to gain wisdom. Like, anyone with legs may be able to run, but that's not the other side of being a marathon runner.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I disagree about the "fear" part because I believe the "ideas" of Tathagatagarbha and emptiness are just describing two aspects of the same thing being viewed from different angles...

Astus wrote:
If by buddha-nature what is meant is the mind without ignorance, then yes. But if tathagatagarbha is only a potential, then how?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
In which case, essentially we just have to let go of this deluded mind, but then the logical flaw arises that if enlightened mind is unconditioned, then why/how would it be effected by the conditioned?

Astus wrote:
That is the questions raised in the http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama4/shurangama4_9.asp after Yajnadatta's story. The answer is not necessarily satisfactory, but shows that because of the type of language used, it results in a convoluted explanation, that could have actually been avoided if they did not start with talking as if there were some ultimate mind.

Sherab Dorje said:
Which is why I prefer the description of Tathagatagarbha as the potential for enlightenment that exists in all sentient beings.  This description then avoids 16 pages of acrobatics.

Astus wrote:
As a potential it means that the tathagatagarbha teaching is only about raising spirits and trying to convince people who are afraid of prajnaparamita.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
If the unconditioned mind arises from the conditioned mind.... then maybe it isn't unconditioned? At any rate there is no need for "both minds" to exist simultaneously. Pristine mind is a pretty concept but man there are some tricky problems attending it.
Are we on the same page now? Getting closer?

Astus wrote:
It doesn't arise from anything, since it's not something to arise or disappear, so in that sense it is unconditioned. But as long as it's presented as if there were an "it" or "something", it keeps generating this misinterpretation of an ultimate object or subject, while the whole point is to realise the lack of substances.

To me, unfabricated sounds better than unconditioned, because fabrication implies active doing, while conditioning is being subject to something. So, an unfabricated mind is more like not making up ideas, while an unconditioned mind is like untouched by things. Although both can mean the same, unfabricated - or unfabricating - seems more accurate.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
Geez that's pretty absolutist don't you think?

Any mind with a modicum of clarity can follow a few simple logical arguments and arrive at a rough perception of emptiness. A more practised mind will perceive emptiness more clearly. A Buddha, completely separated from affliction, would have in a sense a pristine mind and a perfect apprehension of emptiness. It's a gray scale.

Astus wrote:
My point is that the difference between deluded and enlightened is not the attainment of a different type of mind, but the presence or absence of afflictions. That is actually expressed by the concept of buddha-nature that only requires unearthing from under the dirt. And then there is the sort of teaching where "this mind is buddha", that is, not something beyond everyday actions, feelings, and thoughts. The dirt is not what appears, not the experiences, but whether one grasps them or not, and attachment depends on seeing them empty or not. That's why I say that talking of an unconditioned pristine consciousness is figurative, otherwise it is a duality between conditioned and unconditioned, and people have two minds. That assumption of a pure mind can easily make people look for a second head, as http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama4/shurangama4_8.asp goes.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is no correspondence between what the Tibetan text says and this translation into Chinese.

Astus wrote:
It is clear from the context that "characteristics" refers to bodily characteristics of the Tathagata, because that's the original question in the chapter. Nevertheless, it is not unusual to use the text in a flexible way.

Here are two commentaries of the chapter.

"Tathagata is the true nature of life, wisdom, love, and happiness. Only when we can see the signless nature of signs do we have a chance
of seeing the Tathagata. When we look at a rose without being caught by its signs, we see the nature of non-rose and therefore we begin to
see the Tathagata in the rose. If we look into a pebble, a tree, or a child in this way, we also see the Tathagata in them. Tathagata means
coming from nowhere and going nowhere, showing no sign of coming and no sign of going, no sign of being and no sign of non-being, no
sign of birth and no sign of death."
(Thich Nhat Hanh: Diamond that Cuts Through, ch 5)

"Why can the Tathàgata not be seen by his bodily characteristics? Because the existence of marks is false. All marks decay and become extinct. In the midst of marks one must be separate from marks. When there are marks, know them as empty. Then you see the Tathagata’s Dharma body, which is without form or appearance."
(Hsuan Hua: The Diamond Sutra, p 96)

Malcolm said:
The Tibetan renders it as follows:

Astus wrote:
Xuanzang doesn't translate it as "bodily characteristics" but as "perfect characteristics", and seems that it matches the Tibetan rendering. I don't know if anyone has used his to make an English translation. As you may know, Kumarajiva's works generally beat everyone else's in popularity.

Malcolm said:
It is not figurative. It can be taken literally.

Astus wrote:
Pristine consciousness is the one the perceives emptiness, isn't it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
When no characteristics are perceived, that is called "perceiving emptiness."

Astus wrote:
That's a good example of figurative speech.

"All things that have characteristics are false and ephemeral. If you see all characteristics to be non-characteristics, then you see the Tathāgata."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 5)

Malcolm said:
Yes, and this is why we can say that pristine consciousness is unconditioned

Astus wrote:
Again, figuratively speaking.

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.

Q: What does "not dwelling anywhere or on anything" mean? 
A: Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding. This stage of achievement is also the non-abiding Mind, and the non-abiding Mind is the Buddha Mind.
( http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
When perceiving emptiness on the path of seeing, it is described as perceiving "space like emptiness." One does not perceive characteristics of things at all, therefore, there is no perception of things. It is not nirodha, because there isn't a total cessation of perception. There is a perception of emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Is there such a thing as emptiness to perceive?

"This is a perfection of what is not, because space is not something that is."
(PP8000 9.4, tr Conze; T8n227v4p553a25)

Malcolm said:
Dzogchen is the state of prajñāpāramita.

Astus wrote:
It looks like that prajnaparamita is a big common factor among all Mahayana schools.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Because they are empty.

Astus wrote:
What isn't?


Malcolm said:
This is definitely a point of contention. In general, in sūtra, it is considered that on the path of seeing all ordinary appearances vanish, one does not perceive them anymore. It is only in post-equipoise that appearances, albeit, now truly dream-like and illusory, return.

Astus wrote:
If by "ordinary appearances" it is meant as perceiving with delusion, then it is OK. If what is meant is total cessation of perception, then it is more like nirodha-samapatti.

Malcolm said:
Mañjuśrīmitra states:

Astus wrote:
That sounds just like the prajnaparamita teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 6:14 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
I would not attach the label "bliss" to it because it seems to confuse things. It's just my way of sorting the labels.

Astus wrote:
The Nirvana and the Srimaladevi Sutra popularised the notion that nirvana is nitya, sukha, atma, subha. That is in opposition to the four classic elements of contemplation, but they also emphasise that they should not be confused with the mundane versions. As I take it, this is merely a wordplay to set up positive sounding qualities, instead of the original negative sounding ones. But practically there is no difference in the path.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
catmoon said:
I'm curious ... is anyone here serious about pursuing jhanic attainments? It seems that much of this discussion is about fitting the jhanas onto a Procrustean bed, said bed being preconceptions and teachings and arguments from authority. Anything that doesn't fit the preconceptions is simply lopped off.

Astus wrote:
If one has no experience, then there are only the theories. If one has experiences, then again there are only the theories to compare it with. The problem is that once one calls it "jhana/dhyana", there are so many associated ideas with that word, that it inevitably becomes a debate about definitions. Just consider the situation where two people's version of what constitutes absorption do not match. If they think there can be only one correct interpretation, they will start to argue about whose reading of whatever source material is correct. There are topics on Dhammawheel where it goes on endlessly, and the same applies to the larger community of Theravadins.

And to answer your question, I did experiment with states of absorption, and I have found them beneficial. As Ajahn Chah said (Collected Teachings, p 309), "We don't have to call it first jhana, second jhana , third jhana and so on, let's just call it `a peaceful mind'". If we take the practical approach, the first four describe a gradual calming, that makes sense once the first jhana is seen as a naturally pleasant, peaceful resting, that comes from abiding unmoved by thoughts and feelings. These same qualities experienced during meditation are recognised in the various Mahayana traditions as well, but they don't call it absorption, simply because that term has been elevated and alienated by earlier generations of abhidharma scholars and the tradition in general.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
For sentient beings such as ourselves, "Experience" occurs in the mental consciousness.  Even "experiences" of nonconceptual bare awareness are reified into conceptual proliferation.

Astus wrote:
There is the tendency to objectify and personalise experiences, that is the deluded habit that generates dissatisfaction. At the same time, most of the experiences are not grasped or labelled as anything, and that's why they then often fall into the area of disinterest, unawareness, and ignorance, that is, the inclination to disregard them. This selective perception could be called the normal, but it is not that uncommon that one occasionally becomes aware of the larger amount of ongoing experiences, although it is most likely during the practice of meditation.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Direct perceptions are nonconceptual by nature. It means we are not conscious of them. We are not conscious of the blueness of the vase when it is perceived by vijñāna, it is only after it has been discriminated and become a second order perception that we become conscious of a blue vase that we have seen.

Astus wrote:
It sounds like you say that people have no experience of their senses, they only think of sense impressions. To me it seems common to just gaze without any thoughts or labels, but still being aware of the view.

Malcolm said:
No, the emptiness of emptiness is not a conceptual emptiness, neither is the emptiness of the unconditioned. These things are empty whether we conceptualize that emptiness or not.

Astus wrote:
Why make them categories of emptiness then?

Malcolm said:
The direct perception of emptiness is not a "normal" perception. If it were, all people would have it all the time.

Astus wrote:
Perceiving emptiness is not perceiving a particular object, but the lack of fabrication. Might call that uncommon, but I was referring to the usual sensory functions, that they do not cease to operate.

Malcolm said:
The causality that I do not reject is the same as the self that I do not reject.

Astus wrote:
Fair enough.

Malcolm said:
A buddha simply responds to the needs of sentient beings spontaneously without any thought at all, in just the same way a wishfullfilling gem grants all wishes without any thought at all about the one who possesses it.

Astus wrote:
That means that a buddha is either a robot or natural force, or that there are effects without causes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
We are not conscious of direct perceptions either, since they are nonconceptual. Therefore, according to you, nonconceptual pristine consciousness (nirvikalpajñāna) is an impossibility.

Astus wrote:
Why wouldn't we be conscious of basic sensory impressions? I think we have a terminology problem here... We see many colours, hear many voices, etc. But of course we do not give special attention to all of that, don't label them all, don't start thinking about them, and so on. However, the store-consciousness is a whole different matter, and I don't see how your response even relates to that.

Malcolm said:
Again, you here make a wholesale rejection of nonconceptual jñāna, as well as direct perceptions. Thus, for you buddhahood is a conceptual, conditioned, impermanent mind, in contradiction with all the sūtras and tantras.

Astus wrote:
We can very well understand nonconceptual experiences, actually that's what we normally do all the time, conjecturing about sights and sounds, all sorts meditative experiences, and practically anything. And since sutras and tantras talk about nonconceptuality, they do give explanations and do conceptualise it.

Malcolm said:
Emptiness is not always the emptiness of something, for example, the emptiness of emptiness or the emptiness of the unconditioned. Awareness is not always an awareness of something, for example, yogic direct perception of emptiness on the path of seeing.

Astus wrote:
The emptiness of emptiness is dropping the conceptual grasping of the idea of emptiness, so it does have something there. Same goes for the unconditioned. Perception of emptiness is not perceiving anything (i.e. it's only nominally a type of perception), it is just normal perception without the imputation of substance.

Malcolm said:
No, you are imputing causality onto appearances, there is no causality which can be found in appearances themselves. If you assert that appearances operate according to causality, you are falling into realism.

Astus wrote:
What is the kind of causality then that you do not reject?

Malcolm said:
They act spontaneously.

Astus wrote:
What does that mean? They act out of habit? Or what is the cause, the intention for their actions?

Malcolm said:
And thus, it is an unconditioned experience, a nonconceptual pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
If that is what you call unconditioned pristine consciousness, we are not in disagreement on the level of meaning, only on the level of terminology/aesthetics.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Your comments about experiences--sights, sounds, feelings, etc.-are beside the point, the contents of discursive consciousness, the 6th consciousness, or "mental consciousness,"  and are excluded from the object under discussion--the "mind's abiding reality."  Why? Because those things you've added--experiences, percepts, etc., are all "produced from causes," etc.

Astus wrote:
Is the nature of mind experienced in a vacuum where nothing whatsoever occurs and one is in the pure perception of awareness without content? I guess that is not the case, but rather one recognises how the nature of mind is free from fixating on whatever is displayed. Is that not so?

conebeckham said:
Just a clarification the "Luminous clarity" is something other than merely the "world sensed now as simply such."  It is not the normal, transitory appearances of consciousness alone.

Astus wrote:
What more do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Luminous Clarity, Buddha Nature, in Connection with Bliss-Emptiness Mahamudra
A Vajra Song by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso

Astus wrote:
Thank you for sharing this here. Let me step out a bit of the ongoing debate, so perhaps we can do some other kind of discussion.

conebeckham said:
Namo Guru Asanga Ye

To the unequalled teacher, mighty Shakyamuni,
And the lord of the tenth ground, supreme Maitreya,
With my three gates filled with great respect, I prostrate.
I shall explain Buddha Nature, luminous clarity.

Astus wrote:
I have no special qualities to show for myself, so whatever explanations I seem to give here, is all an attempt at rephrasing words.

conebeckham said:
The subject of the final turning’s Sutras on the Essence
Is mind’s abiding reality, Buddha Nature itself,
Spontaneously present, not produced by causes,
Self-arisen and self-free, clarity-emptiness, fixation-free.

Astus wrote:
The tathagatagarbha scriptures are skilful means to point to the sublime experiential realm of the realised ones. This true nature of our minds is already there, and requires no learning or practice. Right now, everything comes and goes incessantly, and there is no force required to manipulate them in any way. Sights, sounds, feelings, and thoughts are here, yet they cannot be relied on.

conebeckham said:
Mind’s essence is empty of duality’s fleeting stains,
Beyond duality, ordinary mind is not empty.

Astus wrote:
When the mind is ordinary, it doesn't add or subtract anything. It is always without anything that can be held onto, even though it is filled with never ending bright images.

conebeckham said:
Beyond permanence and extinction is luminous clarity,
Permanence and extinction don’t exist in this basic nature,
Affirmation and negation’s stains don’t cover it,
So it is explained to be self-arisen and self-free.

Astus wrote:
Unhindered awareness is clearly visible, when ideas of keeping and leaving are silent. In fact, the true mind cannot ever be pulled or pushed. Not because there is some unmoved mover, or a motionless watcher. Nor it is because one has conquered all the nasty defilements and obscurations. This world sensed now is simply such, changing and transforming according to its own ways right in front of our eyes.

conebeckham said:
This bliss-emptiness, self-awareness, inexpressible,
When described is luminous clarity, great bliss,
And when left undescribed, it is the same bliss-emptiness—
How amazing! Join this with the great secret path.

Astus wrote:
Contentment is neither gained nor lost. There is nothing we miss, so why not rest and rejoice? Talking and not talking are equally fine, the painting of a circle is black, but also white. The path is vividly clear, with every step you are there.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You are not only arguing that seeds are not experienced, you argue that the ālayavijñāna does not exist because according to you it is not aware.

Astus wrote:
The store-consciousness' function is to maintain the seeds, where the seeds and the store-consciousness depend on each other, forming a stream. So, the store-consciousness is aware of the seeds (plus the "material" (not the 5 sense-consciousnesses) world). It includes and maintains all that one is not actually aware of, but it is explained as if there were a consciousness that knows of innumerable things, just like the ordinary ideas about the subconscious and memory where so many things are hidden. However - and this is where the problem is - none of us are actually conscious of anything that the store-consciousness supposedly knows. And, as you have noted before, the eight are simply functions of one consciousness, and it is unreasonable to say that one cannot know what one actually knows, there cannot be such a store-consciousness.

Malcolm said:
We did say what was immune [to argument], and that is nonconceptual pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
The reason you say it is immune, is because it cannot be conceived. What cannot be conceived cannot have a meaning, because meaning comes from conceiving what something is. Therefore, it is immune, because it is meaningless. On the other hand, if it is meaningful, then there is something to be conceived, and it is within the boundaries of conceptual analysis, hence not immune.

Malcolm said:
It is differentiated because pristine consciousness is the dharmatā of the mind, the essence of the mind.

Astus wrote:
How can you separate something from its essence? Also, what is not the essence, the attributes? Is it the mind that discerns its own essence?
(It seems that this differentiation between essence and mind brings us to the problems of Aristotelian essence and accidents.)

Malcolm said:
Therefore, the original mind is dharmatā emptiness which is the luminous mind that does not become solely empty by nature or an inert emptiness and is called self-originated wisdom. Since there isn’t an iota of a characteristic of conditioned or unconditioned apart from being intrinsically clear emptiness, it is beyond the inert composed of particles, clarity which possesses subject and object, and a knowing consciousness.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is always emptiness of something, just as awareness is awareness of something. Saying that appearances are always experienced (awareness, consciousness, mind) and also without essence (empty, not self, ungraspable), is perfectly fine with me. And an empty knowing as an abstract concept is also good, as long as it's not turned into some transcendental soul.

Malcolm said:
Who rejected causality? No me. I said it was not something which could be established, that does not mean I negate it.

Astus wrote:
What would be an establishment, a substrate, for causality? Actually, an ultimate consciousness would be exactly that. However, that's not something I proposed. What I say is that causality is how appearances operate. I can also add to that, just to emphasise the lack of any substrate here, that causality is a conceptual interpretation of appearances, and appearances themselves are very much unattainable. In other words, I take it to be illusory, phenomenal, apparent.

Malcolm said:
For a completely realized person, there is no difference between a strawberry or a raspberry, so he or she does not need to make a choice.

Astus wrote:
Does such a person then simply starves to death (or dies from dehydration, or perhaps stops breathing...) because of his inability to function in the world?

Malcolm said:
When one is in nirvikalpa samadhi, is this an experience or not? Are there nonconceptual experience? If so, how?

Astus wrote:
Going with Vasubandhu's and Xuanzang's definition here (CWSL, tr Wei Tat, p 687):

"If, in perceiving the sphere of objects,
Wisdom (jnana) no longer conceives any idea of the object,
Then that wisdom is in the state of Vijnaptimatrata,
Because both the object to be apprehended and the act of apprehending by consciousness are absent."

"Nirvikalpakajnana, which does not cling to the objective world, and accepts no kind of sophistry about its seeming appearance (prapancanimitta). He is now said really to abide in the genuine and transcendent nature of Vijnaptimatrata, that is to say, he experiences the Bhutatathata (Absolute Reality)."

This is of course an experience, it is the realisation that there is no real substance. It could be said that it is the same experience as before, except here there is none of the usual personalisation and objectification.

Malcolm said:
Seeds occurs in the realm of the mind, so why they not experiences?

Astus wrote:
I think the above response should answer this question.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So for you, there can only be conceptual consciousness, and no nonconceptual consciousness, which means there can be no direct perceptions, and awakening is therefore also a conceptual state.

Astus wrote:
How so? Even the highest jhanas can be experienced, they can occur in the realm of the mind. Seeds do not exist as experiences at all. It's not a question of nonconceptuality.

Malcolm said:
It is immune from the conventions of language because nonconceptual pristine cannot be accessed through conceptual analysis, that is the point of Sthiramati's presentation of the Buddha's meaning.

Astus wrote:
If it's not accessed through conceptual analysis, it is neither a statement, nor an argument, since it cannot be said what is immune.

Malcolm said:
Thus, mind is an affliction to be abandoned. Pristine consciousness is a quality to be acquired. Differentiating mind and pristine consciousness, in the end, is all the path is about.

Astus wrote:
Unfortunately, pristine consciousness is something that cannot be known. It can't be known because it is beyond ordinary mind, and it cannot be known because it is not even in the scope of consciousness. So, how do you differentiate?

Malcolm said:
That is a pretty pessimistic view, and is at the heart of what Wayfarer was trying to get at with "if there is a an born, etc., there is an unborn, etc."

Astus wrote:
Why pessimistic? That's the inseparable two truths. It's just that while you like to say rainbow bodies and unconditioned minds, I like a cup of coffee and a slice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C3%A1cs.

Malcolm said:
Sure, no sentient beings, no buddhas. Stands to reason. But there is still something before buddhas attained realization and sentient beings fell into delusion. In Kagyu, it is called the mahāmudra of the basis.

Astus wrote:
As I have http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=336108#p336108, that basis of samsara and nirvana is the clarity-appearances, in other words, knowing and feeling of all sorts of phenomena.

Malcolm said:
Homogeneity means the two truths are inseparable. Since Madhyamakas assert a true relative truth, they do not understand this point. Nondual means that having understood the two truths as inseparable, one abandons views since all phenomena are in fact nondual.

Astus wrote:
Since they are one, why reject causality and views?

[Mañjuśrī] asked further, “Where should emptiness be sought?”
[Vimalakīrti] answered, “It should be sought within the sixty-two [heterodox] views.”
(Vimalakirt Sutra, ch 5, BDK Edition, p 109)

Malcolm said:
there is no ability to develop formations— not accepting, not rejecting, not moving, and not seeking. As such, this culmination of the comprehension of being like an illusion is also proven to be the culmination of comprehending the two truths as inseparable.

Astus wrote:
So, if such a person is offered a choice between strawberry and raspberry, can he not decide? If he can, how is that not accepting and rejecting?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: What is the ultimate good according to Mahayana and Vajrayana?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is neither a positive, nor a negative axiology. But at the same time there is. In Chinese they call them those who advocate existence (you 有), and those who teach non-existence (wu 無).

Theravada sounds like annihilationism, Mahayana sounds like eternalism.

The Nikayas state clearly that statements about the Tathagata after death is nonsense, since even in life there is nowhere to pinpoint him. In other words, there has never been a self, so there is no self to disappear.

Mahayana talks of the eternal life of the buddhas, and the true self of the buddha-nature. But once you care to actually look beyond those terms and analyse what is actually meant there, it will turn out to be nothing else but emptiness.

All of Buddhism follows the idea of the four noble truths, the gist of that is how attachment is the wrong move that leads to all problems. Consequently, it is not something to be attained, but attachment to be stopped in order to gain peace. One can go on from satipatthana through zazen to mahamudra, and that's what one has to understand, practice, and accomplish. On the other side, it is taught that with the attainment of wisdom comes morality as well.

As for the ultimate good, here's one famous stanza from Zen (Record of Linji, p 32, tr Sasaki):

When hunger comes I eat my rice;
When sleep comes I close my eyes.
Fools laugh at me, but
The wise man understands.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Karma is only function of a delusion; the eight consciousness are just a name for different functions of one consciousness, that consciousness is deluded.

Astus wrote:
It cannot be a function of consciousness if there is no consciousness/awareness of it.

Malcolm said:
It is free from extremes since none of these terms are relevant to the meaning. It can't be refuted because it not a subject of analysis by ordinary persons.

Astus wrote:
What is relevant to the meaning then? It is still a statement made within the boundaries of conventional language, so it cannot be exempt from the rules of argument.

Malcolm said:
Right, the mind does not need to purified. It is an affliction to be abandoned.

Astus wrote:
Where are the afflictions, if not within the realm of consciousness?

Malcolm said:
Nope. Pratyatmyavedana, "personally known for oneself."

Astus wrote:
That's a strange Sanskrit word. If you mean that it is personal experience, then mind made also fits, in the sense that it happens only to/in the mind, in other words, it is subjective. It is something Theravadins sing in the http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/vandana.pdf, one of the http://www.purifymind.com/Introduction.htm: "Paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi" - to be personally realised by the wise.

Malcolm said:
Drinking tea and getting dressed are activities of delusion.

Astus wrote:
Delusions are all there is.

"Conditioned generation is the place of enlightenment, because ignorance and so forth through old age and death, are all unexhausted. The afflictions are bodhi, because of understanding according to actuality. Sentient beings are the place of enlightenment, because of understanding no-self. All dharmas are the place of enlightenment, because of understanding the emptiness of the dharmas."
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 4, BDK Edition, p 100)

Malcolm said:
Madhyamakas cling to correct relative truth, not understanding homogeneity and nonduality.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by homogeneity and nonduality?

Malcolm said:
Everything is completely equivalent to an illusion, not merely "like" an illusion.

Astus wrote:
I think there are two possible reasons that rarely anyone puts up an extreme claim as you seem to do. Antinomianism is feared to be misused as http://www.georgegatenby.id.au/kw40.htm, or one wants a more coherent system that includes the stages of the path. Probably the two goes together.

Illusions are causes and conditions. It makes little difference to call pain and joy illusory as long as one is bound by them. And when not bound, it doesn't matter whether one calls them illusory or not either.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
In the Tibetan, it is clearly translated as "unconditioned" (' dus ma byas, asaṃskrita ), not "cessation" ( nirodha, dgog pa ). You are using Mueller's list, not the text itself.

Astus wrote:
Muller simply translated it: http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T31n1614_001, and it lists the same 6 unconditioned dharmas, 1 empty space (虛空), 1 suchness (真如), and 4 types of cessation (滅). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiji http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T44n1836_002 lists the same six. See also the http://www.cttbusa.org/100shastra/100dharmas9.asp.

Malcolm said:
There are no moments, so this is not a problem. The three times are not established.

Astus wrote:
If that's not a problem, then there is no need for any seeds to connect past actions with future fruits, thus the storehouse-consciousness is redundant.

Malcolm said:
It is an argument — nonconceptual pristine consciousness is immune to refutation because it is free from all extremes.

Astus wrote:
It is nonconceptual, and not conceptual. That's an extreme. It is pristine, not defiled. That's an extreme. It is an independent consciousness, not a dependent one. That's an extreme. Since it's not at all free from extremes, it is not immune to refutation either.

Malcolm said:
The point is that delusion is not part of the mind.

Astus wrote:
Is it outside the mind then? Because then the mind need not be purified.

Malcolm said:
Do you take the suttas to be the definitive statement on the Buddha's teachings?

Astus wrote:
It depends on what teachings. If the question is about the meaning in the context of the Nikayas, that's what should be looked at. If the question is, let's say, a Yogacara interpretation of the Agamas, then look at the Yogacara works.

Malcolm said:
One says "self-originated" because reality is only discerned for oneself without depending on another.

Astus wrote:
So is it another term for mind made?

Malcolm said:
Sure there is emptiness outside of the aggregates, the emptiness of emptiness, for example, or the emptiness of the unconditioned. The dharmadhātu is an emptiness "outside of the aggregates.

Astus wrote:
Seeing the emptiness of the aggregates is about clarifying whatever we experience. Otherwise, the various categories of emptiness are for refuting specific attachments to specific ideas, so theoretically we could have as many types of emptiness as concepts.

Malcolm said:
Who is denying appearances? Appearances self-display, but no cause and condition can be found for them. Who denies conventionality? The conventional is just deluded attributions for self-displayed appearances.

Astus wrote:
Is self-display like self-originated, i.e. mind made? If, as you seem to say, the correct view is when appearances only self-display without causality and interdependence, then how can one drink tea that way, or even get dressed?

Malcolm said:
But this not a confirmation of conventionality.

Astus wrote:
It seems so to me.

Magja Jagchub's commentary to MMK 24.14:

"For the one for whom emptiness is possible, all conventional principles, such as those pertaining to the four noble truths, will be possible as well. Below it is then explained how that which originates in dependence is devoid of nature and, therefore, emptiness. 
...
As this is the case, conventional dependent origination is possible for those for whom natural emptiness is possible. All the [principles] mentioned above, from the noble truths to mundane conventions, will then be just as feasible since they are included within dependent origination. Yet for the one for whom emptiness is not possible, that is, the one for whom there is a nature, dependent origination is not possible either. Hence, everything that falls under the category of dependent origination, such as the noble truths and mundane convention, becomes impossible as well."

Tsongkhapa's commentary to the same verse:

"This is why it makes sense: we maintain emptiness to be the emptiness of essential existence of that which is dependently arisen. Therefore, for anyone to whom emptiness makes sense, dependent arising makes sense.
...
All mundane and transcendental phenomena, the sacred and the profane, their effects and mundane conventions make sense. The Commentary explains that the reason that all of these make sense is that they exist and that is also in accord with the madhyamika’s system. Therefore, this does not mean that since they are said to exist, we fall into the extreme of reification or that all systems need to be consigned to the perspective of others."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is the error of your view. You imagine that conventional things are like hollow bubbles, they have no insides, but they still somehow exist.

Astus wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html, and

All conditioned phenomena
Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow
Like the dew, or like lightning
You should discern them like this
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 32)

Malcolm said:
In reality, also the hollow bubbles you cling to have never arisen, so what is the need to even speak of their essence?

Astus wrote:
Sure, all dharmas are unborn, inconceivable, and inexpressible. At the same time, there is no emptiness outside the aggregates, or to talk of anything else but the insubstantiality of one's experiences. Denying appearances, denying conventionality - what is that good for? As I have quoted before Chokyi Nyima's comment, it's not all just non-existence. Similarly, it is exactly because all things are unborn that they are interdependently apparent. As the quote goes (MMK 24.14): "All is possible when emptiness is possible. Nothing is possible when emptiness is impossible."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, delusion exists as an adulteration of the mind, but since it is not inherent to the mind, it is extraneous to the mind from the beginnging.

Astus wrote:
Delusion is the delusion of the mind, not something outside it. As for its inherency, I did not say anything like that.

Malcolm said:
This not only a dhyānic radiance.

Astus wrote:
It is not, "In the later developed concept...", as the essay says. And so it's been further developed in Theravada, just like in Mahayana. But it has not been said so in the suttas themselves.

I also recommend Sujato's https://sujato.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/on-the-radiant-mind/ of the scripture, where he writes: "Nowhere is there any suggestion that it has anything to do with Nibbana."

Similarly, http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=315864&sid=619c200efdfac56bfbf9d86acd213aaa#p315864 as well agree that the sutta refers to jhana.

Malcolm said:
So you are an advocate of cessation. When a buddha or arhat dies, his consciousness ceases. This is definitely not the Mahāyāna view.

Astus wrote:
I simply pointed out what the sutta literally says. However, the Nikayas do not support the idea that parinibbana equals cessation, as it's been repeated in several suttas regarding that question.

Malcolm said:
In order for one thing to depend on another thing, one thing must arise upon which another must depend. But this does not solve anything. Why? Since the arising of even one thing cannot be established, there is no arising.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's fine.

Malcolm said:
Everything which appears is merely a unconditioned self-apparent display nondual with an unconditioned self-originated pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
That's certainly one way to say it. However, if we analysed that sentence, it would be quite problematic. For instance, just as you say that arising of even one thing is not established, self-origination is refuted in the same way.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I'm afraid I don't agree. If what you were saying were true, the Buddha would have ceased to exist at the moment of the enlightenment. But, he did not, obviously.

Astus wrote:
Why would he have ceased? It is only craving, attachment, ignorance that's removed. In other words, the difference is whether there is or there is not any grasping at the aggregates. The aggregates are not gone.

Wayfarer said:
The radiant mind, it says in that verse we are discussing, is 'obscured by adventitious defilements'; so how could the radiant mind and its obscurations be the same?

Astus wrote:
If something is dirty, it is not radiant. But if dirt and light are separate, then it is radiant no matter what.

Wayfarer said:
That verse you have quoted says 'consciousness without end', so how could something 'without end' come to cease? 'The consciousness that ends' is the mano-vijnana.

Astus wrote:
There is infinite consciousness, the 7th jhana. But it's not permanent. As for what mind ceases, it only says vijnana. The Yogacara version of mano-vijnana is a different system.

Wayfarer said:
But the intrinsically-aware or -knowing nature of mind is not the same as  Ātman.

Astus wrote:
What is the difference?

Wayfarer said:
I understand what the 'problem of reification' is, but there is an opposite problem, which is the 'problem of nullification', which is what I think you're falling into.

Astus wrote:
Annihilation is the error when something is eliminated or something ceases to exist. There has never been an essence ever, so it cannot be nullified. So, where does it apply to what I say?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 1st, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Same text, Tibetan translation from Chinese.

Astus wrote:
I don't see any feeling and perception among the unconditioned dharmas on that list. Unless you mean saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha, what is a cessation.


Malcolm said:
If nothing substantiates nominal interdependence, why argue so hard that consciousness must be conditioned?

Astus wrote:
There is just nominal interdependence, that is, conditioned phenomena. Saying that there is an unconditioned consciousness leans towards permanence, and saying there is no consciousness leans towards nothingness. So, I prefer the language of dependence-impermanence.

Malcolm said:
It is not a hidden consciousness.

Astus wrote:
Who experiences it? Ordinary people don't see it, and buddhas don't even have it. Plus there is a problem that it requires innumerable moments of consciousness in a single moment, in order to maintain the flow of unripe past impressions.

Malcolm said:
No, there is no denial, even an illusory world is not established. Why deny what has never been established from the start?

Astus wrote:
Illusoriness is what not being established is. Besides that, see my comment on the leanings of terminology.

Malcolm said:
It is a very good argument, one that has left you silenced and unable to reply.

Astus wrote:
I have replied that it's not an argument. You just turned that into a personal remark now, instead of showing how it was a valid statement from your part.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 1st, 2016 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
'Delusion' is a mental or existential state, isn't it? Rocks and other insentient objects can't be subject to delusion. So there must be a subject of delusion, musn't there? What becomes of the subject when delusion is dispersed? If the subject merely ceases to exist, how is that not nihilism?

Astus wrote:
There is no subject of delusion, because in that case subject and delusion would be two things. And that's how buddha-nature often sounds like, for instance when in the http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra50.html they talk of it as hidden under defilements. However, assuming a duality between buddha-nature and the defilements is exactly the theory of atman. The Buddha has denied the existence of a subject, and only when a subject is assumed one falls into the extremes of eternity and annihilation. When you say that a subject ceases to exist, that is the mistake of positing a subject.

Delusion exists as an element of the mind-stream, and when delusion is removed, it's not a factor in the mind any more. It is like the clearing of water, that is not coloured by defilements (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.055.wlsh.html ).

Wayfarer said:
But there are clear precedents for the 'transcendent' nature of mind even in the Pali sources:

Astus wrote:
It's jhana radiance, not soul radiance.

"In early Buddhism, the “radiant mind” (pabhassara citta) refers neither to an absolutely pure state of mind nor to spiritual liberation, but is the dhyanic mind that is radiant on account of not being disturbed or influenced by external stimuli."
( http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.3-Radiant-mind.-piya.pdf )

Wayfarer said:
"Consciousness without feature,  without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

Astus wrote:
As the sutta itself says, consciousness ceases. Adding in brackets "activity of" means little, since a non-active consciousness is just unconsciousness. See more: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/. More analysis on the unestablished consciousness: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/17.8a-Khandha-5-Vinnana-piya.pdf.

Wayfarer said:
There is also an exposition of the 'true nature of mind' in the Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is part of the teachings of Mahamudra, Zen, etc. And what does it practically mean? Not much, really. One is promised to attain some marvellous mind, like Nanda was promised heavenly maidens, but then the practice is all about not grasping anything and seeing all phenomena as empty. There is even strong criticism of those who grasp a watcher mind, something that they identify as the true self in Vedanta. But in Mahamudra, just like as in Zen, there is nothing to be found, nothing to be seen, even buddhas don't see it.

"It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana."

Chokyi Nyima's comment:

"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."
(Song of Karmapa, p 65)

That is, we have thoughts and feelings, there are things coming and going. That's why it is not a big nothingness. Not because we have an eternal, independent knower. It is no different from Madhyamaka's middle way of empty interdependence.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 1st, 2016 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Um, Astus, one is called vedana-asamkrita, the other is called samjñā asamkrita, respectively unconditioned sensation and unconditioned perception/ideation.

Astus wrote:
I used this one from Vasubandhu: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/outlines/100dharmas.html. What is your source?

Malcolm said:
If you claim it is merely an essence of phenomena that have not arisen, this means you grasp to the conventional as real. This comes from not understanding homogeneity and nonduality.

Astus wrote:
Being real requires an essence. Without essence, what is there to be called real? Conventionality is nominal interdependence, appearing illusion without anything substantiating it. To say that there is nothing that arises is a conventional expression that sounds like utter nothingness. I'm not saying that the dharmas are not unborn. What I'm saying is that there are other ways to put things.

Malcolm said:
That is really not true at all. For example, what takes rebirth in the yogacara system is precisely the ālayavijñāna.

Astus wrote:
That's how they came up with an explanation for karma, positing a hidden consciousness to bridge death and birth, cause and effect, etc.

Malcolm said:
When we see the conventional as the conventional, then we can understand that things like causes and conditions are just erroneous attributions. Since this is the case, conditioned consciousnesses are impossible. Why? Because when the conventional is seen as conventional, it is seen as a delusion.

Astus wrote:
And that's all we have, the illusory world. An opposite of that would be a real world, or nothingness. Here you just deny it, so that's the nothingness option.

Malcolm said:
Further, the Kāśyapa-parivarta Sūtra states: ...
Sthiramati's comment on how this is understood is instructive: ...

Astus wrote:
That is equal to saying: not this, not that, but I cannot say what. That is not an argument, or even a statement.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 1st, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Your assertion that all consciousnesses are conditioned is unproven. For example, Vasubandhu notes that there are unconditioned sensations and perceptions among the six unconditioned dharmas he identifies.

Astus wrote:
So, the 6 unconditioned dharmas are: space, 4 types of cessation, suchness. None of them are anything in particular. Calling them "consciousness" doesn't really fit, since they do not denote any thought, feeling, or perception.

Malcolm said:
Not only that, but the Bodhisattvapitika clearly states: Futher, an unconditioned consciousness is a pristine consciousness (jñāna)

Astus wrote:
That refers to the absence of self-grasping. But what functions as consciousness is dependently arisen.

Malcolm said:
Consciousness in which there is no delusion is a pristine consciousness, self-originated and unconditioned.

Astus wrote:
See my previous comment. Although it can be said that since there is no attachment, it doesn't rely on anything, doesn't identify with anything, so in a way it is as you say. My problem is that when it is said there is an "unconditioned consciousness", because consciousness means knowing and thinking, and there can be no knowing and thinking without causes and conditions, it is a contradiction.

Malcolm said:
So what isn't a theory?

Astus wrote:
That's a valid question. The difference here is that while normally it is easy to identify the first six consciousnesses, and that's what one works with, the 7th and 8th are not seen nor used for anything, except for theorising about karma.

Malcolm said:
No, the basis of the "conventional" is delusion. Cause and condition cannot be established apart from delusion, they are rooted in delusion, and therefore, the basis of the conventional is also delusion.

Astus wrote:
The delusion in conventional is to take it for the absolute. When conventional is seen as conventional, there is no problem, so it is then the absolute. In other words, conventional is not negated but enlightened. But, again, we can say that there is either deluded functions and buddha functions, and the two never meet. However, I consider that model more misleading.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The seer is empty clarity.

Astus wrote:
Is clarity a form of consciousness/awareness/knowing? If yes, it is conditioned. If no, what is it?

Malcolm said:
Pristine consciousness is not the same consciousness as the deluded consciousness, but you can say that the eight consciousnesses arise from mistaking the nature of self-originated pristine consciousness for being a self.

Astus wrote:
If the eight consciousnesses are the assumption of self in consciousness, when there is no such mistake, it is impure. Is that what you say?

Malcolm said:
So what, now you are saying that the all-basis consciousness is merely a theory?

Astus wrote:
I have been saying that for a while.

Malcolm said:
I also note that you did not reply to my charge that you are suffering from an hidden grasping to the self of persons and things by your insistence on the verity of cause and condition.

Astus wrote:
Causality is the basis of the conventional, the illusory. I don't say it is anything more than conceptual.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
When the three realms are seen as delusion from top to bottom, then it is seen correctly.

Astus wrote:
And the question is if you propose that the seer is real or illusory.


Malcolm said:
Pristine consciousness is not a product of causes and conditions since no causes and conditions can be found at all. If you insist that the only thing that exists are things produced out of causes and conditions, your view is really no better than realism, and betrays an inner attachment to a self of persons and things.

Astus wrote:
Pristine consciousness is the same consciousness as the deluded one, with the difference that it lacks identification. And then it can be said that the absence of identification is unconditioned.

Malcolm said:
What I am saying here is that what one experiences is the seeds in the sense that without the seeds/traces there are no deluded experiences to be had.

Astus wrote:
Yes, the seeds are the assumed causes of delusion. And because it is merely an assumption, it's nothing experienced, but an element of a theoretical explanation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: ye shes and jalus
Content:
Malcolm said:
but perhaps you will not cast a shadow.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Causality is a delusion. Further, your assertion proposes that there cannot be a consciousness of any kind which is free of the three realms, which does not take birth in the three realms, that outside of the three realms there can be no sort of consciousness at all.

Astus wrote:
If the three realms stand for a deluded approach, one should leave all that behind; but as long as there is something one takes as the true self, an ultimate consciousness, it is still the three realms of delusion. If the three realms can be viewed with either a pure or an impure mind, then there is no other realm or consciousness to look for either, thus we are already in the pure land of Shakyamuni.

Malcolm said:
Au contraire, this is why we have rainbow body.

Astus wrote:
This body-mind is no different from a rainbow - it looks like there is something, but it's just the momentary product of causes and conditions.

Malcolm said:
The problem is with deluded appearances. The appearances of pristine consciousness are not a problem, and nor can there be any attachment to them. If there is attachment, the appearance is automatically a product of delusion and is delusion.

Astus wrote:
Then this is only a matter of terminology.

Malcolm said:
All eight consciousnesses and their attendant dharmas are delusion, products of delusion and experiences of delusion.

Astus wrote:
The question is about experiencing seeds, not delusions. Since seeds are not experienced, they are conceptual assumptions of a theoretical explanation, a philosophical attempt to connect action and fruit.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Even so, this does not go beyond delusion.

Astus wrote:
Anything that is beyond causality is irrelevant in life.

Malcolm said:
No, it isn't.

Astus wrote:
In that case, there is neither enlightenment in this life, nor is it compatible with life.

Malcolm said:
This is a subtle reification of things. Your view here is very much the same as the Gelugpa view.

Astus wrote:
Do you think then that the problem is not (only) with attachment, but with appearances?

Malcolm said:
All delusion is the experience of seeds/traces.

Astus wrote:
Deluded experiences are manifestations of seeds, not the seeds themselves.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Dependent origination was never taught to explain the nature of things. It was taught only explain the process of delusion and how to reverse it.

Astus wrote:
I did not refer to the 12 links only, but the general concept of causality. Three examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patthana, http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Paratantra, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net.

Malcolm said:
Second, there are no "things" for which dependent origination is the nature.

Astus wrote:
"No things" is exactly what dependent origination is about. But illusory doesn't mean nothing.

Malcolm said:
since the eight consciousness are strictly deluded, there can be no buddhahood in them.

Astus wrote:
That's when they "turn into" the four wisdoms. But it's just the same old body-mind without delusion.

Malcolm said:
There can be no time, conditions, causes, etc., in a real sense.

Astus wrote:
It's all in an unreal sense. That's the whole point of emptiness, to see how unreal everything is. And they are all already unreal just as they are. The only error is this deluded idea of a real self, real substance. There is no error in a bowl of soup, or a pair of socks. The error is imagining them to be anything that they are not.

Malcolm said:
Since the the all-basis consciousness is the imputing nature, it is very active.

Astus wrote:
Do you experience the innumerable seeds replicating themselves every moment, waiting to be ripened in an unknown future time?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Where are habitual tendencies? Where are karmic seeds? Where is memory?

Astus wrote:
Can there be an object of consciousness, a mental phenomenon, without consciousness/mind? If yes, then there are unthought thoughts and unfelt feelings. If no, then habits, seeds, and memory cannot exist in some hidden way.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Strange that they says this. It means that either you have not understood them, or that they are wrong.

Astus wrote:
As for Huineng, it wasn't given much weight anywhere - as far as I am aware -, probably because it is a short discussion between him and an advocate of the Nirvana Sutra. The exception is Dogen, who used that bit to turn it into an attack on a prevalent interpretation of buddha-mind. While it was Dogen who made that interpretation one of the main elements of his teachings, as he shows by a number of quotations, the common reification of buddha-nature has been pointed out by teachers before him as well. More on Dogen's buddha-nature interpretation: http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms13.pdf, http://www.lionsroar.com/impermanence-is-buddha-nature-embrace-changemay-2012/, http://terebess.hu/zen/dogen/Kodera-Dogen.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?id=AmKE2xIjOwcC.

Malcolm said:
Mipham states:

Astus wrote:
As I see it, the dual qualities of emptiness-awareness can be applied perfectly well to the five aggregates, in the sense that they are without essence, and at the same time exist as experiences. But assuming that there is something beyond, an eternal knower, is just a self-view.

Malcolm said:
The problem is, that aside from the five sense organ consciousness, all the three others can be described as conceptual consciousnesses

Astus wrote:
The reason I said it's the 6th, is because both the 7th and 8th are latent. They are proposed in order to set up a fairly coherent theoretical model, but nobody ever actually experiences them, they are practically non-functional.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 30th, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Sutras of the Chinese Canon?
Content:
seeker242 said:
So how would one go about determining what particular Mahayana sutras are canonical according to the Chinese Canon?

Astus wrote:
There are canons, not just a single authoritative collection. And even in one canon you can find more than one translation of a number of sutras. Previously it was the emperor in China who authorised (and sponsored) a collection.

You can read about it a bit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_canon.

seeker242 said:
Is there a list somewhere, in English?

Astus wrote:
Check this: http://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/Map-of-the-Taisho.pdf

seeker242 said:
For example, is the Lotus Sutra canonical? The Heart sutra? The Diamond sutra? The Surangama? I'm sure there is someone who could tell me if they are or not but how would I find out for myself?

Astus wrote:
If you look at the above "map", you find that there are whole sections, like one for the Lotus Sutra (Volume 9: 法華部類 Lotus Sutra Section: T0262 – T0277), a smaller for the Heart Sutra (T0250-T0257 般若心經 Wisdom Heart Sutras), and the Diamond Sutra (T0235-T0239 金剛般若經 Vajra Wisdom Sutras). As for the Surangama, there is the Surangamasamadhi Sutra (T0642) translated by Kumarajiva in the Sutra section, and there is the Surangama Sutra (T0945), the one popular among Chan people, in the Tantra section.

If you want to find out for yourself, check the source of the English translation. For instance, http://sutrasmantras.info/sutra0.html uses the CBETA version of the Taisho Canon, and he notes that in the translation, just like other translators do.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
How could it be 'pleasant'? For whom? Why is it not just non-existence?

Astus wrote:
The Buddha says at the beginning of that sutta: "Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt."

Why?

"If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality, that is an affliction for him. Just as pain arises as an affliction in a healthy person for his affliction, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset the monk is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."

And the text goes through all the jhanas like that. So, because in nirvana there are no afflictions at all, it is pleasant.

Wayfarer said:
Again, is Nirvāṇa the 'end of afflictions' or complete non-existence?

Astus wrote:
It is the extinction of craving, the end of attachment. Craving is not all there is, so it is not total annihilation.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 7:22 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
What is it that recognizes affliction? Is that faculty itself afflicted? If there is an unconditioned, an unborn, an unmade, what knows that? Is what knows that a mind that is made and born?

Astus wrote:
Afflictions are unwholesome thoughts and emotions. So, can one be angry at anger? Sure. Can one look at anger in a not angry manner? Of course. Thus one can either worsen one's situation or improve on it, or just keep it on.

Nirvana is the unborn and unconditioned. Nirvana means the end of afflictions, because all the causes of afflictions are gone. When there is no fuel, there is no fire. But a fire extinguished is not some being, self, or consciousness.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So whatever 'the unconditioned' is, it is insentient?

Astus wrote:
Necessarily it is. Sentience requires the ability of cognisance, of perception. Those are conditioned events, just like any event is dependent. Unconditioned consciousness would mean a permanent consciousness, hence an eternal moment of a single thought, and that is as good as no consciousness at all.

Wayfarer said:
Is that so?

Astus wrote:
If it were independent, it would be useless, because it would be without contact to anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Dependent appearances occur to a mind, these appearances or occurrences are the Nirmanakaya.  Fixation does not merely mean that one mistakes an essence of objects, in this case.

Astus wrote:
Mind itself is a dependent appearance. What more does fixation mean?

conebeckham said:
There are different ways to answer that question, right?  We can parse sense consciousnesses, mental consciousness, or we can talk of a single awareness, like the monkey in the window of a many-windowed house.  Or we can talk about Pristine Awareness.

Astus wrote:
True.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So for you Buddhamind is conditioned, therefore it is impermanent.

Astus wrote:
On the one hand, that's what Huineng and Dogen says, that buddha-mind is impermanent. On the other, supposing a buddha outside of one's mind (buddha-nature beyond the five aggregates) makes it an unattainable theory.

Malcolm said:
The presentation you provide of yogacara i really dont agree with. Try sourcing from Asanga.

Astus wrote:
Do you have a quote perhaps, to give the interpretation of manas and manovijnana you agree with?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
If something is merely empty, an emptiness, a null set, or whatever, then how could there be any fixation, how could there be anything to be fixated on, and what would be "doing the fixating?" Perhaps we can look into what could be fixated in the first place.....

Astus wrote:
Emptiness does not exist, it only means that the aggregates are without essence. But there are dependent appearances, it's not complete blankness. Fixation is just the mistake that there is an essence. Once that delusion is gone, there is no cause for fixating on appearances, but again, it's not the end of appearances.

conebeckham said:
You seem to want to equate "clarity" with awareness.  I see clarity as a quality of a certain kind of awareness.

Astus wrote:
How many kinds of awareness do you have?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I didn't mention it. The sūtras maintain this is so. They also maintain that dharmakāya is jñāna. Draw your own conclusions.

Astus wrote:
Unconditioned knowing is not possible, unless one accepts a soul. So, the meaning is something else.

Malcolm said:
Mano-vijn̄āna is a nonconceptual consciousness, like the other five sense consciousnesses.

Astus wrote:
The mano-vijnana is the thinking mind, the one with all the thoughts and ideas, i.e. concepts. It is also the one that becomes discerning wisdom (pratyavekṣaṇājñāna / 妙觀察智). So, what you seem to be saying is that conceptuality is non-conceptual. Manas only adds the grasping at self, and a number of basic defilements.

The first mind as subjective transformer is the ālaya-vijñāna. The ālayavijñāna flawlessly retains all of our past experiences, and recognizes and contextualizes things as we cognize them. our experiences, according to their depth and significance upon our lives, are difficult to remove.
The second subjective transformer is the manas. in this case, objects of cognition are transformed by a deep attachment to the self, and the resulting tendencies to protect and further that self.
Then, already subject to these subconscious influences, the cognitive function of the thinking consciousness and the five sense consciousnesses—that is, the discrimination of things — arises.
(Tagawa Shun'ei: Living Yogacara, p 17)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:
seeker242 said:
Did the 6th patriarch have a high level of literacy?  If not, then that essentially proves that statement to be false,  does it not?

Astus wrote:
The Platform Sutra is a literary product. In fact, as we can see from the Dunhuang version, it was used as the very emblem and source of transmission. As for Huineng's biography, it is good fiction.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
On a related note, what is the sort of cultural history of Zen poetry involving depictions of the natural world?

Astus wrote:
Perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanshui_poetry.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I've not seen Rupakaya defined as the "aware" part......It's defined as the "benefit for others" and so we can say it's the "functional" part.  Dharmakaya is defined as the "benefit for oneself" so therefore it must mean more than just the empty quality.  It must have some other "quality"--the quality of awareness, IMO.

Astus wrote:
There are the threefold body of the nature of mind, and the threefold body of buddhas. When applied to the mind, that's where sambhogakaya is called clarity. When to the buddhas, it is identical to the dharmadhatu.

conebeckham said:
Sambhogakaya, in this presentation, is bliss with non-thought.  So, we can say it's empty as well, but it has a blissful quality.
Dharmakaya, in this presentation, is a state of "'non-thought' free of clear fixation."  If we take 'non-thought' to be emptiness of mind, we still have to understand what is "free of clear fixation."  "Clear Fixation" does not mean lack of clarity.

Astus wrote:
Is there anything that's not empty? Unless there is, there is no point in using it as a quality again and again. I mean, we can then say sambhogakaya is bliss. As for the dharmakaya, if it means "free of clear fixation", doesn't that simply mean without fixation? If the definitive quality of dharmakaya that it has no fixation, then it is just lack of fixation in the mind. And because it is an absence, it is not an actual quality of something, just like emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
We have already seen that dharmakāya is defined as the buddha's jñāna, his pristine consciousness, which is characterized by the twin omniscience.

Astus wrote:
You also mentioned before that the dharmakaya is unconditioned. Do you propose an unconditioned consciousness then?

Malcolm said:
Which mind? Certainly not the eight consciousnesses. For example, which mind among the eight consciousnesses is operative in the realization of emptiness?

Astus wrote:
Realisation of emptiness is the elimination of the wrong concept of essence. That ignorance is removed from the mind (the 8th in the 8 consciousnesses system) by correct discernment (of the 6th).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
In which system? In which context?

Astus wrote:
Whichever you think is fine.

Malcolm said:
If you claim, as you have, that dharmakāya is only emptiness, there is the fault that dharmakāya will be a blank void.

Astus wrote:
I don't hold the dharmakaya to be anything, not even blank void. It is just a term for the emptiness side of buddha-mind, while the rupakaya accounts for the aware, functional side. If we move the aware quality from the rupakaya to the dharmakaya side, it matters little to me, except that then the rupakaya needs new roles.

Malcolm said:
The dharmakāya is realization of emptiness, the realization of dharmatā. That realization is nondual with emptiness, but it still is a realization. A blank void cannot realize anything.

Astus wrote:
One realises things with the mind. That the mind is empty, that quality can be called the dharmakaya. Otherwise, if it is the realisation of emptiness, it is a very momentary occurrence. If it is the result of the realisation, the enlightened mind, then of course it cannot be a mere blankness.

Malcolm said:
Furthermore, the next fault is that a blank void cannot be a source of anything, and dharmakāya is the source of the two rūpakāyas.

Astus wrote:
If dharmakaya means the enlightened mind, what are the other kayas?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
See my post above for one explanation....

Astus wrote:
What you gave seems to follow the original quote in identifying the dharmakaya with emptiness ("non-thought" free of clear fixation), while clarity goes to the sambhogakaya, and appearances to the nirmanakaya. Or did I miss something?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
That said, poetic transmissions are useful, really any teaching that goes straight for the jugular and shuts down the conceptual is a real gift.

seeker242 said:
And it seems these are the people who hate koans because koans don't allow for that!

Astus wrote:
"It has been noted that Zen was essentially associated with the literati and the means of dissemination of Zen, such as Recorded Sayings, history of lamp transmission, collections of koan stories, and so on, was highly literary and textual. Zen is basically a literary tradition and a high level of literacy is necessary for understanding the meaning of Zen."
(Jiang Wu: Leaving for the Rising Sun, p 34)

This type of literary Zen (wenzi chan 文字禪) goes back to the Song era when they started composing recorded sayings, lamp transmissions, and koan collections. The Blue Cliff Record is a prime example of that. So, actually it was not about "shutting down the conceptual" at all. And there is still a currency of this sort of literacy, as shown by http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/Zen_Sand.html, but Meido can probably say more.

I would compare this "Zen language" to other forms of Buddhist intellectual products, like abhidharma, madhyamaka, yogacara, etc. They are all works of the educated elite for other members of that group, and they are meant to convey the Dharma in a respected and appropriate format.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:
Meido said:
Who are the "so-called Zen practitioners", as opposed to Zen practitioners? From what experience do you make definitive statements about what the majority of them want?

Astus wrote:
Zen practitioners are anyone who engage in Zen practice, usually identified as zazen. I have not intended the larger group of Zenophiles (very good term!). As for the reason, it is simply my personal observation from both online and offline sources. It could be added that it is not an exclusively modern Western phenomenon, but a common human behaviour. Of course, it's not exclusive to Zen either. It is normally easier to follow a practical method than to change one's mindset, for example as it happened with yoga.

Meido said:
But really, I think sweeping generalizations about Zen in the West are not terribly useful, and it's not clear to me on what basis you make them.

Astus wrote:
You may consider it as a side note about a possible deviation. It is about how the supply and demand works in terms of Zen community programs and literary products. For Zen groups, the main events are retreats, while in Asia the main events are holiday ceremonies. As for books, let's look at some reading lists. It seems to me that they lack a significant doctrinal part, they focus on meditation, sometimes ethics, but not really on what's behind those things - karma, defilements, dependent origination, wholesome and unwholesome mental factors, etc. And because there is no view provided, people can fill in the gaps with whatever they like.

I think this sums up the attitude quite nicely:

I don't believe in rebirth and yet, I don't negate it. There is no basis to believe or negate it. What I can say for sure is, "I don't know." The important thing for me is to practice in this lifetime as the Buddha instructed in the Dammapada, "To refrain from anything bad and practice everything good. Purify your mind. This is the teaching of the seven Buddhas."
(Shohaku Okumura: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Genjokoan_Okumara.htm )

So, let's look at those recommended works.

At https://zmm.mro.org/training/recommended-reading/:

They recommend DT Suzuki, that's sort of a strong negative. They use questionable translations (for the Diamond Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, Surangama Sutra), and history books (Armstrong, Dumoulin). Basic teachings on karma, rebirth, the bodhisattva path, etc. are marginal, while the three major koan collections and most of the available recorded sayings are there. Four books by Trungpa are included, but nothing from Nagarjuna, or on Madhyamaka, Yogacara, or Pure Land, while there is only one book on Tiantai meditation, and one on general Huayan concepts.

At http://www.oceangatezen.org/resources/a-basic-soto-zen-reading-list/:

Basic introductory list. Includes mostly modern practice oriented Soto teachings, a Theravada intro, and TNH's intro. It's OK for a start.

At http://zmc.org/reading-list:

1 Dogen, 2 Trungpa, 1 Pema Chodron, 12 modern Zen teachers, 5 koan collections. This lacks even the basics, not to mention fundamental Mahayana.

At http://bostonzen.org/suggested-reading-list/:

A good number of modern Zen books, one Nikaya anthology, a few Mahayana type intro books, a little Dogen, koan collections, and a mixture of Buddhist and spiritual works.

At http://www.mondozen.org/resource_library/reading_list.htm:

A big mixture of this and that. At least it mentions The Sun of Wisdom by KTG. It's hard to see how someone could gain a complete picture of Buddhism, or even just Zen from that list.

At http://www.zen-azi.org/en/node/43:

It gives the basic tone when the second book on the list is Buddhism without Beliefs. Lot of Soto Zen books. Has a nice list of the Nikayas and Mahayana sutras, but nothing comprehensive on schools or teachings besides a practice centred Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, you don't have to change anything.

Astus wrote:
If the dharmakaya includes both emptiness and awareness, what do sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya stand for?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
is a term used to describe the mind of a buddha. It is not simply an term describing a blank insentient emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Then you have to change the roles given to sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya as the functional aspects. Because where dharmakaya refers to emptiness, the three bodies together make up a complete buddha-mind, and they do not exist separately.


Malcolm said:
Kanthā. It means anything that lacks a mind.

Astus wrote:
Interesting. In the dictionaries online it translates to "rag, patched garment; wall, town". But if it means anything mindless, how is it specifically for rocks?

Malcolm said:
That is how it is parsed in some Vajrayāna contexts,  but never in sūtra, where it is generally treated as synonym of dharmakāya.

Astus wrote:
Maybe in TB, but have not encountered with it in EAB. But their unity is known:

"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."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, BDK Edition, p 90)

Malcolm said:
it is easy to reduce everything to nihilism with flippant quotes.

Astus wrote:
"The concluding practice is the conviction that the ordinary mind that was from the beginning the unity of clarity and emptiness is itself the naturally arising three kayas - its emptiness is dharmakaya, its clarity is nirmanakaya, and the union of those is sambhogakaya."

(Jamgon Kongtrul on Mahamudra of the Shangpa Kagyu, in The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Eight, Part Four: Esoteric Instructions, p 246)

"The great state of dharmakaya is space-like emptiness. The expression arising out of the state of primordial purity is a spontaneous presence which includes the two form kayas - sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya. ... What that means is our essence, which is a primordially pure emptiness, is dharmakaya. Indivisible from that is the natural cognizance, the spontaneously present basis for experience that is the sambhogakaya aspect."

(Tulku Urgyen: As It Is, vol 1, p 100)

"As to the three bodies, the pure dharmakāya is your nature, the perfect and complete saṃbhogakāya is your wisdom, and the thousand billion nirmāṇakāyas are your practices (i.e., saṃskāra, “mental activities”)."

(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK Edition, p 60)

"Emptiness is the Buddha's Dharmakaya, just as the Dharmakaya is emptiness.  People's usual understanding is that the Dharmakaya pervades emptiness, and that it is contained in emptiness.  However, this is erroneous, for we should understand that the Dharmakaya is emptiness and that emptiness is the Dharmakaya.
If one thinks that emptiness is an entity and that this emptiness is separate from the Dharmakaya or that there is a Dharmakaya outside of emptiness, one is holding a wrong view.  In the complete absence of views about emptiness, the true Dharmakaya appears.  Emptiness and Dharmakaya are not different.
The most important thing is your empty, cognizant mind. Its natural emptiness is dharmakaya, also called empty essence. Your natural ability to know and to perceive is cognizant nature, sambhogakaya."

( http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang%20Po/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang-po.htm )

"By what reasoning can it be shown that sentient beings have Buddhanature? Because all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of Dharmakaya, because there are no differentiations in the nature of suchness, and because all beings have a "family " For these three reasons, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature. ...
To explain the first reason "all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of Dharmakaya" means that the ultimate Buddhahood is Dharmakaya, Dharmakaya is all-pervading emptiness, and emptiness pervades all sentient beings Therefore, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature.
Saying "there are no differentiations in the nature of suchness" means that the suchness of the Buddha is identical to the suchness of sentient beings None is better or worse, none is bigger or smaller, none is higher or lower So, because of that, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature."

(Gampopa: Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p 49-50)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, just as there is no partial awareness of dharmakāya, there is partial awareness of tathāgatagarbha.

Johnny Dangerous said:
That actually makes sense, can't have partial awareness of something that is by definition beyond partiality.

Astus wrote:
Just to add another version:

Those Bodhisattvas who, having advanced from the first stage of correct faith by setting the mind upon enlightenment through practicing contemplation, have come to realize the Dharmakaya, can partially comprehend this. Yet even those who have reached the final stage of Bodhisattvahood cannot fully comprehend this; only the Enlightened Ones have thorough comprehension of it. Why? The Mind, though pure in its self-nature from the beginning, is accompanied by ignorance.
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So here you definition of dharmakāya = emptiness is inadequate, since it would leave dharmakāya as an inert void.

Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya is not a being to be anything, it is a term, a concept, used in various contexts. If you think it should be emptiness-awareness/wisdom/appearances/etc., so be it. We can then go on from there.

Malcolm said:
No, but they do have a word for the insentience of rocks.

Astus wrote:
What is it?

Malcolm said:
As for as there being more than three bodies of the buddha, that very much depends on whether one considers svabhāvakāya to be a synonym for dharmakāya or not. I am inclined to think it is a synonym.

Astus wrote:
As for the fourth body, I think it's just an extra emphasis on the oneness of the three bodies. Or another way to claim superiority of Tantra, similar to adding a fifth wisdom (jnana). Maybe both at the same time. Regardless if it's three or four, Linji said it all (p 19, tr Sasaki): "They are just empty names, and these names are also empty."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Depends on what you mean by "thing." I mean "dharma"

Astus wrote:
By thing what was meant was substance, an independent object. Dharma, in the sense you mentioned, is a conceptual category, and in that way there can be a category of unconditioned things, as they say in abhidharma.

Malcolm said:
If emptiness = the dharmakāya, then is the dharmakāya is just something inert, like a rock?

Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya refers to the ultimate nature of buddhas, and that is emptiness. It seems that Buddhist thinkers did not bother with creating a special word for the insubstantiality of rocks. Note: dharmakaya is just one of the three/four bodies, so it is not all there is to a buddha/mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm said:
If seeing the mind = seeing tathāgatagarbha, than this makes mind unconditioned or tathāgatagarbha conditioned, but undesirable consequences.

Astus wrote:
There is no such thing as the unconditioned. Unconditioned means unbound, empty. Seeing the mind means recognising that it's empty and conditioned, and by that one is not conditioned any more by imagined essences. So as they say, the emptiness is the dharmakaya, the awareness is the sambhogakaya, and appearances are the nirmanakaya.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
So my question is: why this different kind of presentation (which some would call oblique). Why not just put the idea out there in a straightforward way, as in the Ajahn Chan text? What happens as a result of the change in presentation?

Astus wrote:
There are simple and straightforward Zen teachings using conventional Mahayana terminology. Some Tang era records are mostly unedited, like those of Baizhang, Huangbo and Dazhu, while those of Huineng (Platform Sutra), Mazu, and Linji have been edited more extensively, but they are still fairly legible. When it comes to the Song era, on the one hand we have the koan collections with their complicated language, and the reason behind that is that they are literary products. On the other hand, if you read the works of Dahui Zonggao and Foyan Qingyuan, they are quite clear. You can read all those mentioned in English.

As always, one should keep in mind the intended audience of a text. In many cases, Chan writings are like calligraphy, artistic products for the educated elite. And Chan teachers themselves were members of the high society, who catered to the taste of the rulers, in exchange of support and other benefits. Of course, there are other types of writings as well, however, it shows the requirements of the Western audience that people reading Zen are also from the educated class, and they enjoy the peculiarity of exotic Eastern riddles. Among so called Zen practitioners, the majority probably do not want anything to do with common, prosaic, religious philosophy, so in stead it's easier to pretend that Zen is beyond all concepts when the texts themselves are mostly non-sense.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 5:41 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What one gains insight of is non-conceptual awareness. However, at the beginning that is only like non-conceptual awareness, because one usually takes it to be a non-functional mind, the lack of thoughts. So, as in Mahamudra, one trains from one-pointedness, non-conceptuality, and one-taste up to non-meditation, where mind, thoughts, and appearances are all co-emergent and self-liberating; or in Madhyamika terms, non-dual emptiness and dependent origination.

The reason only buddhas see buddha-nature, is that buddha-nature means liberation and the buddha qualities at the same time, so there is the talk about both empty and not empty. Hence, sravakas know liberation, bodhisattvas know liberation and limited qualities/function, and only buddhas have both liberation and function.

The trick (or reinterpretation) for buddha-nature in so called direct teachings is to identify the buddhas' liberation and qualities/function with emptiness and awareness, whereby seeing the mind becomes seeing buddha-nature. But that still leaves space for a gradual development.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 8:27 PM
Title: Zen Language
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are two comparisons. The first one is a Hongzhi comment on a section from the Platform Sutra. It is three poems with the same intention. The second one is an old Chan story in Dogen's version and a modern Theravadin teaching, again, pointing to the same idea.

Record of Hongzhi (vol 3, T2001p27c16):

Wolun was cited:

"Wolun has a trick
That can stop the hundred thoughts,
Meeting circumstances no mind rises
And bodhi grows daily."

To that the Sixth Patriarch said,

"Huineng has no trick
There are continuously hundred thoughts,
Meeting circumstances mind arises
How could bodhi grow?"

Hongzhi added,

"Sunflowers turn to the Sun.
Willow catkins fly with the wind."

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Modern%20Teachers/John%20Daido%20Loori%20-%20Dharma%20Talks/Discourse%20Yunyen%27s%20Insentient%20Beings%20Preach%20the%20Dharma.htm:

Dongshan asked Yunyen, "Who can hear the teachings of the insentient?"
Yunyen said, "It can be heard by the insentient."  Dongshan asked, "Do you hear it, Master?" Yunyen said, "If I heard it, then you would not hear my teaching." Dongshan answered, "That being the case, then I do not hear your teaching." Yunyen replied, "You don't even hear my teaching, how could you hear the teachings of the insentient?" Dongshan was enlightened on hearing this and responded in verse:

Wondrous! Marvelous!
The teachings of the insentient are inconceivable.
If you listen with the ears, you won't understand.
When you hear with the eyes, then you will know.

https://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Samm_Samdhi_Detachment.php:

When the mind sees like this, wherever we go, we see aniccam. (transience), dukkham. (imperfection) and anatta (ownerlessness). There's nothing left to hold on to. Whether we sit at the foot of a tree, on a mountain top or in a valley, we can hear the Buddha's teaching. All trees will seem as one, all beings will be as one, there's nothing special about any of them.
They arise, exist for a while, age and then die, all of them. We thus see the world more clearly, we see this body and mind more clearly. They are clearer in the light of transience, clearer in the light of imperfection and clearer in the light of ownerlessness. If people hold fast to things, they suer. This is how suering arises. If we see that body and mind are simply the way they are, no suering arises, because we don't hold fast to them. Wherever we go we will have wisdom. Even when seeing a tree we can consider it with wisdom. Seeing grass and the various insects will be food for reflection.
When it all comes down to it, they all fall into the same boat. They are all Dhamma, they are invariably transient. This is the truth, this is the true Dhamma, this is certain. How is it certain? It is certain in that the world is that way and can never be otherwise. There's nothing more to it than this. If we can see in this way, we have nished our journey.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Vasana said:
As far as i understand it, the wholesome virtues and karmas enable you to actually benefit beings through the Rupakayas  where as the unconditioned karmas (primordial wisdom) are the cause of realizing Dharmakaya.

Astus wrote:
That is the bodhisattva path, where one is established in prajnaparamita. Before that, however, it's deluded wholesome action causing wholesome results.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
1.  From where does it arise?
2.  If wholesome behaviour is afflicted too, then how can it be a means to traverse the path?

Astus wrote:
1. The three realms have only 3 lower ones with more pain than pleasure. The rest, including numerous heavens, are all nice places. Similarly, there are significantly more wholesome dharmas than unwholesome in abhidharma charts. They are all parts of this world.

2. One can do all kinds of good things, and that will result in good fruits. That is still very much within the scope of how karma works. The reason it can serve as a support for liberation is that one can use the good conditions for peaceful reflection on the drawbacks of life, the four noble truths, dependent origination, and emptiness. Then when the futility of life generates renunciation, and the insight into the conditioned nature of existence shows the insubstantiality of oneself and all appearances, then there is nothing left to attach to and one gains freedom.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So how can it be realised then?  It would be tantamount to running a race without knowing where the finish line is, or if there is even a finish line.  Or even a track, given that suddenly dhyana is not the point of (some... any? ) Buddhist meditations.

Astus wrote:
The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality. That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable.
...
Question: If such is the meaning of the principle of Mahayana, how is it possible for men to conform themselves to and enter into it?
Answer: If they understand that, concerning all things, though they are spoken of, there is neither that which speaks, nor that which can be spoken of, and though they are thought of, there is neither that which thinks, nor that which can be thought of, then they are said to have conformed to it. And when they are freed from their thoughts, they are said to have entered into it.
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html )

As for the attainment of dhyanas, there are various views on them, particularly among Theravada teachers where they teach it in several ways (e.g. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=4597 ). However, essentially it means peace of mind, where in the first four stages one's enjoyment of peace calms down, while the formless stages are about refining the object that sustains the attention. Naturally, there is the tendency to elevate holy concepts to unreachable levels, at which point they disappear from practice, while the actual practices are simply renamed. And that's how we have calming meditation with new names in Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
Astus wrote:
Two essays by Sharf:

http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/koan/Robert_Sharf-e.htm
http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf%20Is%20Nirvana%20the%20Same%20as%20Insentience_.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Vasana said:
I don't know about extraordinary displays of abilities in Theravada or Zen circles today, but they're actually still fairly common in the Tibetan traditions. Many students have themselves witnessed such feats so of course it bears relevance to one's life ,view and practice.

Astus wrote:
Such stories exist in traditional communities, like about Ajahn Chah and Hsuan Hua. But they all sound like the following:

In Taiwan, I have a disciple who has been practicing with me for quite sometime. He has a good command of English, so when a certain Tibetan rinpoche was scheduled to lecture, he was asked to translate. He was very nervous. He had never practiced Tantra, and was afraid that he wouldn’t understand what the rinpoche said. In a quandary, he finally decided that if he didn’t understand, it was the rinpoche’s responsibility to make him understand. With this thought he went to sleep. The rinpoche came to him in a dream, placed his hand on the disciple’s head, and said, “You don’t have to be nervous. You will understand everything I say tomorrow. You don’t have to worry.” He had a wonderful feeling when the rinpoche touched him. The next morning it was the rinpoche who woke him up. My disciple immediately prostrated to the rinpoche and thanked him for entering his dream. Curious, the rinpoche asked, “What happened last night?” The disciple told him, and after a few more questions from the rinpoche, he concluded that it might not have been the rinpoche but a “yidam,” a Dharma protector, who came to him.

Later I asked him if he had ever dreamed of me. He said, “Yes, indeed, many times.” Then I asked if he thought that it was me who had entered his dreams. He said, “No, because Shih-fu doesn’t have a yidam.” So then I said to him, “O.K., I will go and find myself a yidam so that the next time you dream of me, you will be sure that it is my yidam that is entering your dream.”
( http://chancenter.org/cmc/1985/05/15/esoteric-and-exoteric-buddhism/ )

In other words, disciples like to believe that a teacher has special powers, so they attribute some otherwise ordinary events to those powers. That's not different from calling some events the acts of God.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
The 17th Century and now are worlds apart in terms of the prevailing social conditioning. Whereas back then, such feats would make a person revered, today they would make the same person derided.

Astus wrote:
How so? Just reading through this thread shows that many acknowledge the validity of such powers. This little interview tells the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKqmPSToWUU Beyond that, all kinds of energy (Reiki, etc.) and faith (Christians) healers, fortune tellers, magicians and shamans have great popularity.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Either that or he was a victim of good timing...

Astus wrote:
I guess we will never know. But it is telling that while Yinyuan was a Zen teacher - and people today would think them to be not magical at all, nor do such events play any important role in his teachings and records - he was famous among the masses as a miracle worker.

This discussion itself is somewhat strange. All we can talk about are interpretations of stories. As I see it, as long as they are just stories of extraordinary people who are long dead, they bear no relevance to one's practice and life at all. But the rddhipada is part of the 37 qualities for enlightenment, so it should not be foreign to anyone.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Vasana said:
despite the staggering ammount of anecdotal accounts which are collectively significant pieces of data in and of themselves.

Astus wrote:
Christian literature is filled with stories of miracles. Would you call that proof of God's presence?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
I am in complete agreement with Malcolm on this one. But the reason is that the demonstration of such skill will never take a potential student in the correct direction. Always this leads to those who do not have sufficient roots gaining powers that they will inevitably abuse.

Astus wrote:
That does not match all those anecdotes about Buddhist masters using all sorts of magic. For instance, monks were employed by Japanese emperors to guarantee succession through a male heir. Also, look at how in the 17th century a Chinese monk who moved to Japan was perceived:

"Among common Japanese, Yinyuan and his disciples had been viewed as magic workers with extraordinary abilities such as divination, rainmaking, and telekinesis, which has been commonly referred to as “spiritual penetration” (jintsū) in Buddhist literature." (Jiang Wu: Leaving for the Rising Sun, p 165)

An example of one of the stories from the pen of a German visitor in Japan (p 164):

"His sanctity came to the test shortly after his arrival, and the result greatly enhanced the esteem in which he was held. He was asked by the farmers of the surrounding countryside to conduct a kitō, that is, a holy ceremonial prayer or mass, to draw rain from heaven onto their rice fields, which were being devastated by drought. He answered that he could neither make rain nor assure them that the kitō would produce the desired effect but that he would do his best. Thereupon he climbed up a mountain and conducted his kitō. The following day the rain poured down so heavily that even the smaller bridges in the city were washed away, and not only the farmers but also the city judged that he had made his kitō too strong."

It doesn't look like that Yinyuan was afraid of any misdirection of his disciples and the general people.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
What makes you think they still don't? As I said, you apparently don't know any real yogis.

Astus wrote:
Because if there were even one, it would make news all over the world. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braco_%28faith_healer%29.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Bodhisattvas are supposed to cultivate the five abijñas to be of benefit to other sentient beings. For example, being able to know the minds of other sentient beings means that one will automatically know what kind of teaching for which they are suited, etc. Buddha gave much advice of this kind.

Astus wrote:
There are a number of stories of the Buddha where apparently he had no powers to prevent what had happened or know about it (e.g. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn4.18, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.009.than.html ). Also, the very first abhijna includes all sorts of magical powers, that could have definitely helped in spreading and defending the Dharma over the centuries. But clairvoyance and telepathy should have proved useful in several cases, when Buddhist masters had encounters with all sorts of rulers.

Malcolm said:
We are talking about clairvoyance, manomāyakāyas and so on. What is material about that?

Astus wrote:
Do you know anyone who has passed some tests for those abilities? Likely not. At the same time, we don't need to look as far as India to find clairvoyants and such. If, as you say, it is something humanly capable - and it's not as hard as attaining insight into emptiness - I don't see why it is not a common thing.

Malcolm said:
People who have such capacities are not supposed to demonstrate them idly, and if they are monks, they are forbidden to do so.

Sherab Dorje said:
Do you believe that "proving" to the world that telepathy can arise as a consequence of dhyana is an idle demonstration?

Malcolm said:
Yup.

Astus wrote:
Not all people with such capacities are Buddhists, and even Buddhist monks, including the Buddha, have demonstrated their powers openly numerous times according to the stories. So, that kind of argument of "hiding magicians" does not stand either within Buddhism nor outside of it. Again, if it were something attainable by people, we would have dozens of them showing off in concert halls and live on TV, just like those "remote healers", "fortune tellers", etc. actually do.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Your approach to the subject is no different than any other scientific materialist.

Astus wrote:
There is a history of testing claims of supernatural powers in Europe and the US. It is not the case that there is a lack of people who believe in magic, rather it's the lack of people who can perform in a controlled environment. There are monks who are scientifically tested for the benefits of meditation. But there are only old stories where monks and yogis display magical powers.

The materialist approach is to interpret the powers in a way that they should exist in a materially effective way, just like you seem to say. And that's why it is easily refuted as false by others with a similar materialistic approach.

Malcolm said:
What can you use clairvoyance for if it is not a real capacity of the human mind?

Astus wrote:
I don't recall the Buddha advising his disciples to use clairvoyance for anything.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Further clarification of my approach on the matter.

If powers are taken to be real magic, they actually remain only a matter of stories, good for entertainment and nothing more. But if they are understood as meditation/religious experiences, they regain their relevance and become something that people can relate to, that they can truly use for something, etc. And people do experience them, as many practitioner can testify.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
So my sneaking suspicion is that for a good chunk of people who have these abilities or qualities (personally I think quality might actually be a better description in some ways) don't really know how to do them at will, and in some cases maybe aren't even particularly aware of them..though for sure I'm open to the possibility that some very developed folks can use such things and know what they are doing.

Astus wrote:
Everyone should have those abilities. In a way, it is part of social interaction, and regularly experienced among family members and close friends. And there are people who take this to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Frankly, they prefer to remain unnoticed.

Astus wrote:
That sounds just like a good number of conspiracy theories do.

Malcolm said:
And, imagine how annoying it would be to be able to "hear" all the chatter in other beings' minds. What a cacophony.

Astus wrote:
If it is an ability someone has developed, then it can be controlled, and activates according to one's will.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
These days? Tibet and India.

Astus wrote:
How come then that the world knows nothing about them? With all the parapsychologists, hermeticists, esoteric enthusiasts, New Age believers, media sensationalism, and the people who want to prove every one of them as frauds, it seems very unlikely that if there are people with genuine supernormal powers, they just remain unnoticed.

Malcolm said:
There are very few people who have attained even the first dhyāna, let alone the fourth, in this day and age.

Astus wrote:
There are also very few Nobel laureates and Olympic gold medalists.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
What would be called an exceptional level of emotional intelligence in western psych is pretty hard to separate from 'psychic ability', IMO they might actually one and the same. Knowing one's own mind makes it possible to know the minds of others.

Astus wrote:
That's possible, and takes the whole mystical side away.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
It's not as rare as you think.

Astus wrote:
If it were only a matter of gaining the fourth level of absorption - something that's not exclusive to Buddhists - magical feats would be as common as marathon runners, or at least as world class athletes.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, it explains both how it is possible and how it works. When you are less distracted by your own thoughts, you can perceive the thoughts of others more easily. A mind is both unimpeded and unimpeding by nature. It should be taken literally.

Astus wrote:
If that's so straightforward as you say, where are all the telepathic and miracle making yogis (besides all the stories)?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Samadhi is the cause and condition of being able to perceive the thoughts in the mind of another.

Astus wrote:
Yes, so it is with all six powers.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html )

Again, this does not actually explain how it is possible, or how it works, it just says that it happens so. So, "samadhi" is an insufficient reason. Unless what you mean is that we can have such experiences of the powers during meditation, but it should not be taken literally.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The three realms are not just a production of solely our own traces

Astus wrote:
Then the triple realm is not just a mental construct. It sounds like you say the world is a virtual/mental reality of many minds.

Malcolm said:
Subject a has a thought that Subject b perceives.

Astus wrote:
OK. Still, what is the cause/condition/reason for being able to do so? You said that "It is a very simple principle that does not require much analysis." - that is practically like saying that "it just happens".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Who says we don't perceive others minds. We just don't know that the appearance of the triple realm is a mentally generated appearance. The traces of other minds are of enough strength even to create appearances for ourselves.

Astus wrote:
When and how do we perceive others' minds? Since the triple realm is a production of one's own delusions, even mountains are just the false projections of concepts. How could traces (what are such traces anyway?) of minds then come from others?

Malcolm said:
You seem to fail to grasp generic sameness as opposed to sameness as identity. If I apprehend someone else's direct perception of a blue vase, my perception and theirs are generically the same, but the sameness of identity.

Astus wrote:
What specific details would be different in a single moment of thought?

Malcolm said:
Then there is the funny case of the group of arhats who all shared one mind, in the sense that since they were completely open to one another, it appeared to them as if they had but a single mind.

Astus wrote:
Just out of curiosity, where is that story found?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 4:44 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Minds are essentialy unimpeded and nonimpeding so the question of how they connect is irrelevant. It's the wrong question.

Astus wrote:
Since we generally don't perceive others' minds, there is something impeding that perception, or there is a lack of condition for perception. What is it?

Also, if there is no separation between minds, they still remain separate continua, i.e. different causal sequences. If two continua could result in the same moment of consciousness, that would mean two sequences becoming one, and from then on they could not go on different sequences, unless we assume that from a single moment of consciousness two different moments could occur.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
For example, the blueness of a vase.

Astus wrote:
OK, that's a concept, a function of perception (samjna).

Malcolm said:
Upon what should a mind depend? If you assert it must continue based on sense perceptions, than you cannot explain how a mind continues in a completely nonconceptual samadhi, for example, nirvikalpa samadhi (which in a Buddha is called Vajropama Samadhi).

Astus wrote:
When there is nothing grasped, there is no grasper either. But that means only the lack of substantialisation of object and subject, not that there are no phenomena.

Malcolm said:
Same only in the sense in the sense that two fires are both hot; different in so far as the two fires are distinct. In other words, I I apprehend the ball in your mind's eye, the image I perceive in my mind will be indentical to how you perceive the ball, but different inso far as our minds are distinct continuums.

Astus wrote:
Mind is the subjective experience. To make it an object is not any more a subjective experience, therefore not the experience of another's mind, but a concept about what is in another's mind. In other words, you can think that I think about a ball. That happens even when I tell you that I think of a ball, so you know what I think about. Telepathy is knowing what I think without I telling you. But since there is no connection between the minds, what is the cause of knowing it? Without connection it is like seeing a ball that's in another room - there is no light reaching the eyes from the ball, so it cannot be seen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
there is such a thing as a mind that does not apprehend characteristics, hence a mind without characteristics.

Astus wrote:
What counts as characteristic? What does a mind without characteristics depend on?

Malcolm said:
No, no more than seeing a ball is merging with a ball.

Astus wrote:
There are a number of differences between a ball and a mind. What makes a consciousness is a moment of cognition. If one has the very same moment of cognition, then it is the same mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But it clearly does, since it is described as such in many sūtras, etc.

Astus wrote:
A mind without characteristics exists? That would be an independent consciousness, a soul.

Malcolm said:
Also, realized people (bodhisattvas, arhats) with liberated minds may indeed cognize characteristics when in post-euipoise. All the examples you gave merely demonstrate that point. Further, sound is apprehended by characteristics, etc. All cognitions are cognitions via characteristics from which we conceptually abstract our world.

Astus wrote:
Yes, consciousness is of something, of characteristics. Saying that telepathy is seeing the characteristics is equal to seeing the mind, just as there is no roundness and ball separately, therefore experiencing the same characteristic as another is being one with the other, a merging of minds.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 6:59 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, indeed minds do not enter each other. However, in knowing the mind of another, what is required is that the mind to be known apprehends characteristics. If it does not apprehend characteristics, there is nothing for another to apprehend about that mind— for example, when some devas became unnerved when they could not locate a favored monk, they were informed that he was a) now an arhat b) in equipoise, which is why they were unable to find him with their minds.

Astus wrote:
That is the idea that http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=334111&sid=744a1659a6aff7331c07d0a6f592d7c9#p334111 analysed in his writing, and criticised it.

As for minds with characteristics, if we say that consciousness necessarily has an object - one is always conscious of something, not just conscious - then a mind without characteristics does not exist. What is called an http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html is the liberated mind, where there is no attachment to the aggregates. However, that doesn't mean that the mind and other functions stop, so even those who are liberated see, hear, sense, and think. So it seems that if the difference lies in the presence of ignorance, then what can be known of another's mind is ignorance only. However, in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html#mindreading, one can see even an undeluded and released mind, and there are also http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.060.than.html#telepathy to read another's mind, both with and without signs involved. So, when an arhat is not found, is after parinirvana ( http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=419 ), so there is also an interpretation that unestablished consciousness means https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.87 https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.25.

Here is a http://www.zenguide.com/zenmedia/books/content.cfm?t=the_gateless_gate&chapter=42 on this topic (note: Momyo (lit. false/no light, i.e. ignorance) is on 1st bhumi):

Once, in the old days, in the time of the World-honored One, Manjusri went to the assembly of the Buddhas and found that everyone had departed to his original dwelling place. Only a girl remained, sitting in samadhi close to the Buddha's throne.

Manjusri asked Shakyamuni Buddha, "Why can the girl get near the Buddha's throne, while I cannot?"

Shakyamuni Buddha said, "Bring her out of her samadhi and ask her yourself."

Manjusri walked around the girl three times, snapped his fingers once, took her to the Brahma heaven, and exerted all his miraculous powers to bring her out of her meditation, but in vain.

The World-honored One said, "Even a hundred thousand Manjusris cannot make her wake up. But down below, past twelve hundred million lands as innumerable as the sands of Ganges, there is a Bodhisattva Momyo. He will be able to rouse her from her samadhi."
Instantly the Bodhisattva Momyo emerged from the earth and made a bow to the World-honored One, who gave him his imperial order. The Bodhisattva went over to the girl and snapped his fingers once. At this she came out of her samadhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Really?  Well I have yet to see this plethora of evidence.  Normally it is one or two standard quotes that are trotted out.  That is hardly  "well documented" considering the volume of teachings attributed to the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
http://www.dhammadharini.net/dhamma/dhamma-talks-from-the-bhikkhuni-sangha/aranya-bodhi-hermitage/non-historicity-of-the-eight-garudhammas

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/bahudhatuka.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: am i "suffering"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Samsara is not a container of beings, but the life of delusion. Hence the Vimalakirti Sutra: when the mind is pure, the land is pure. And as Yongjia's Song of Enlightenment says: "The true nature of ignorance is the buddha-nature; this empty body, an illusory transformation, is the dharma-body."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Sraddha in Buddhadharma until we can know it for ourselves at buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, the arguments presented in Yogacara (and Dogen's work) is not about explaining how telepathy could work, but to point to realising how our experiences are, and from that gain the liberating view that there is nothing that can be grasped.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
"Shared" is merely a designation

Astus wrote:
In other words, a convention. Telepathy is a conventional concept. Or rather, it was once, but in the modern times it's moved into the conventional reality of a few who believe in the paranormal and such. So, if someone argues that there is such a thing as telepathy, it requires a conventional explanation, just as there is one for how hearing works.

Mother's Lap said:
for when multiple minds see their own minds in a similar fashion to each other

Astus wrote:
How can such a similarity be established, when there is no way to compare one's mind with another's?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Words on nihilism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Sure, but are you using "consequence" as a synonym for "meaning"?

Astus wrote:
See in my previous http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=334039#p334039: "When we want something to have value, have meaning, what we want is to have effects, that it matters what one does."

Causality is the basic rule of the world in Buddhism. That's what makes things good or bad, and that's what one is either deluded or enlightened about. Belief in an intrinsic value is not only against enlightenment, but against the worldly values as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
There is no movement "between" beings, there is only the ruling condition.

Astus wrote:
Now that I could look into that text a little more, the DDV matches Vasubandhu's verses I have quoted, that there is no mind entering another. The DDV states explicitly that minds are not included in the shared category. In Mipham's commentary what are in the shared category are confirmed to be merely the products of one's own mind, while he makes the exception for knowing others' minds. So, since there are just distinct mind-streams, there is some sort of communication between them, otherwise not even a resemblance or reflection of another stream could occur. What is the explanation of such a communication?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Words on nihilism
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
There is no merit outside of good karma, and there is no karma outside of the alayavijnana. Are you saying that buddhas have an alayavijnana?

Astus wrote:
You can call them inconceivable merit and great mirror wisdom, if you like. Still, the idea is that it is accumulated on the bodhisattva path in order to accomplish the buddha qualities. So, there is cause and effect.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Words on nihilism
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Buddhas have cleared away all obscurations, and thus have no karma.

Astus wrote:
In the case of buddhas, they have the merits accumulated and the vows made during their bodhisattva career, and only because of those merits and vows can they produce a buddha-field and manifest skilful actions.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Words on nihilism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
But the path is a path out of the world -- an escape from samsara. So, in effect, actions and experiences in the world are judged by whether they will help us get out of the world. Because of this, we can't really say that dharmas have any intrinsic value, and insofar as that is true, Buddhism is similar to philosophical nihilism.

Astus wrote:
That only creates two levels of a value system: worldly (laukika) and other-worldly (lokottara). Those with worldly interest have the values of merit and sin, and those with other-worldly interest also have the values of conducive or unconducive to liberation.

Denying those values is the wrong view of the ten unwholesome actions: "There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.than.html )

The only point where both worldly and other-worldly values lose meaning is where one is liberated from karma. But the consequences of previous actions do not disappear because of enlightenment, it's just that they do not cause suffering any more, and no new karma is generated.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The mind is considered a sense organ too, after all, so why would it not be able to sense the thoughts of others like the ear senses the sounds made by others?  (Please feel free to add the word "apparent" before every single noun in the sentence).

Astus wrote:
There is an explanation of how sound goes from one's mouth to another's ear. What is the explanation of the movement of thoughts between beings?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Only buddhas can see a mind via direct perception. For ordinary beings, they either imagine the other mind, or in samadhi see a reflection of the other mind.

Astus wrote:
Buddhas do not have that subject-object distinction required to perceive another's mind. Also, assuming even resemblance or reflection of another's mind requires some sort of connection or conditions that would allow that communication, so it does not really solve the problem.

[Question:] if only consciousness exists, does knowledge of the minds of others [really I know the minds of others or not? [We reply,] if we agree, what is the error? [The opponent argues,] if you are unable to know, how can you speak of knowledge of others' minds? If you are able to know ) the minds of others,) then consciousness only is not demonstrated (because you admit the real existence of others]. [We reply,] even though one knows the minds of others, still, it is not [knowing] according to reality (yatha-artha).
A verse says,

How does knowledge of others' minds
Not know the object of perception according to reality?
In the same way that knowledge in knowing one's own mind
Does not know it in accordance with the object of perception of a Buddha.

The Treatise says, how can knowledge of the minds of others not know objects of perception in accordance with reality? It is like knowledge of one's own mind. [Question:] Why does knowledge of one's own mind not know the object of perception according to reality? Because of ignorance of the object of perception. Because each of the two [kinds of knowledge] is concealed by ignorance, they do not know the ineffable object of perception in accordance with a Buddha's pure knowledge. These two do not know the object of perception in accordance with reality because of false appearances that resemble external objects of perception, and because the discrimination of the grasped and the grasper is not eliminated.

(Vasubandhu: Twenty Verses on Consciousness Only, from Three Texts on Consciousness Only, BDK Edition, p 406-407)

It might also be of some interest that Dogen has a short writing on this topic in the Shobogenzo, it's called "The Power to Know Others' Minds" (Tashintsu, in vol 4 of the BDK Edition). There he writes (p 121-122):

Furthermore, what is called in India “the power to know others’ minds,” should be called “the power to know the images in others’ minds.” [Mind readers] may dimly detect, on the outer edges of perception, images arising in the mind. In the absence of images in the mind, however, they are dumbfounded; that must be laughable. Moreover, the mind is not always mental images, and mental images are not always the mind. When the mind becomes the image, the power to know others’ minds cannot know it; and when the image becomes the mind, the power to know others’ minds cannot know it. This being so, the five powers and the six powers of India are not equal to our mow ing weeds and working the fields in this country. They are of no use at all. For this reason, all the past masters in and to the east of China have not liked to practice the five powers and the six powers, because there is no need to do so. Even a one-foot gem can be necessary, [but] the five powers and the six powers are not necessary. Even a one-foot gem is not a treasure, [but] every inch of time is vital. How could a person who attaches importance to time want to learn the five or six powers? In sum, we should decisively affirm the principle that the power to read others’ minds cannot reach the boundary of the Buddha’s wisdom.

And concludes the matter in a very Zen way (p 126):

Now, if we say that there is the power to know others’ minds in the Buddha-Dharma, there must be the power to know others’ bodies, there must be the power to know others’ fists, and there must be the power to know others’ eyes. That being so, there must be the power to know our own mind, and there must be the power to know our own body. If the state is like this already, self-command of our own mind may be nothing other than “the power to know our own mind.” When expressions like this are realized, the state may be the power to know others’ minds [that naturally emerges] from the self itself and from the mind itself. Now let us ask: Is it right to command the power to know others’ minds or is it right to command the power to know our own minds? Speak at once! Speak at once! Setting that aside, [we can conclude that] “You have got my marrow” is just the power to know others’ minds.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Words on nihilism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Does anything we do in samsara (other than the endeavor of getting out of it) have value and meaning?

Astus wrote:
There are causes and effects. Whatever we do has consequences. When we want something to have value, have meaning, what we want is to have effects, that it matters what one does. Certainly it does. At the same time, because it's all causality, there is no actual self inside or outside that, so there is nothing that one should identify with. That everything is meaningful necessitates that it's all meaningless.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: The Beginning of Zen/Chan in China.
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Especially considering that the books attributed to Damo have nothing to do with what the classics describe.

Astus wrote:
Can you give exact sources?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Justmeagain said:
Ok, let me put it another way. What's the difference between sitting here in the couch and sitting on my cushion?

Astus wrote:
From Dazhu's http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/tsung-ching-record:

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.

Similarly, either you accomplish non-thinking (hishiryo), or you are trapped in the extremes of thinking and not thinking. This is what should be clarified first, and that's what sitting on the cushion can help with.

Justmeagain said:
How can, just sitting, with no agenda or method bring about a permanent and transformative experience?

Astus wrote:
It is not an experience one should look for, it is the ongoing experiences one should look at. See them how they arise and fall, come and go. Delusion is wanting an experience, grasping an experience. Liberation is not being fooled by experiences, seeing them to be impermanent, empty of any substance that one can identify with or hang on to. Then, when it is obvious that experiences are ungraspable, there is no agenda or method.

Justmeagain said:
As a friend once suggested, a stone can just sit there doing nothing?

Astus wrote:
Humans cannot do that. We need to eat and sleep, we need clothes and sometimes medicine. And from those needs come all sorts of things to do. Not to mention the innumerable desires and cravings we have. So, we are already in this situation called life, where we want peace and happiness, but at the same time we are constantly bombarded by thoughts, feelings, sensory impressions, and all the social elements. The question is how to deal with all of that. And the Buddha's answer is to realise that the cause of dissatisfaction with life is craving, and craving comes from the ignorance about experiences being conditioned and impermanent. Hence zazen is the practice-realisation of what this body-mind (experiences) really is. In other words, as long as we want to manipulate life, we cannot be at peace, so when one sits, one should not manipulate anything, like a stone left at the bottom of a river.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: The Beginning of Zen/Chan in China.
Content:
Astus wrote:
What does this have to do with Zen?

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: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Justmeagain said:
I guess it doesn't actually feel like I have had a non-conceptual experience of the empty nature of phenomena when I am just sitting...

Astus wrote:
Experiences come and go. You cannot stop experiences to stay away. You cannot hold experiences to remain. That's all there is to recognise. Then there is nothing to grasp, nothing to identify with, nothing to gain, nothing to lose. At the same time, there is clear awareness of everything that occurs and disappears. What more do you want?

"When there is nothing to be gained, nothing to be realized, sitting zazen is “body-mind dropping off (shinjin datsuraku).” Body-mind dropping off is not a wonderful psychological state to be gained as a result of sitting zazen. Rather, zazen itself is nothing but “body-mind dropping off.” It is to escape all kinds of clinging. When we sit zazen, our body-mind naturally drops off and the true Dharma manifests."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms01.pdf )

"When a thought arises during zazen and we become aware of it, it disappears by itself. And when another thought arises, we again become aware of it and it disappears. If we maintain this process, we naturally put aside everything outside and become one with ourselves. This is exactly the state of mind during zazen and the content of hishiryo.
Hishiryo is not to attain a transcendental state of mind through meditation or to enter a state of no thoughts and no images. It is not to remain in a state full of defilements and delusions or to keep discriminative thinking, either. This is what Dogen Zenji meant when he used the word hishiryo. This concept was steadfastly handed down to Keizan Zenji’s Zazen Yojinki. Thus, in the Soto Zen tradition we now emphasize hishiryo as a state of mind during zazen."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms08.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 14th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zazen is where all the analysis leads to. Neither grasping nor rejecting. See for instance http://www.dharma-friends.org.il/libitem/the-middling-stages-of-meditation-by-acharya-kamalashila/:

"In this way, by entering into the suchness of the selflessness of persons and phenomena, you are free from concepts and analysis, because there is nothing to be thoroughly examined and observed. You are free from expression and with single-pointed mental engagement you automatically enter into meditation without exertion. Thus, you very clearly meditate on suchness and abide in it. While abiding in that meditation, the continuity of the mind should not be distracted. ... If and when the mind spontaneously engages in meditation on suchness, free of sinking and mental agitation, it should be left naturally and your efforts should be relaxed."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:
WeiHan said:
Do you mean that consciousness is immaterial and thus cannot be subject to scientific investigation?

Astus wrote:
Yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:
WeiHan said:
I have an objection to this. Isn't electromagnetic field immaterial but it is a subject of scientific study. And the list goes on

Astus wrote:
Then call it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body, if you like.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Essence of Chan
Content:
seeker242 said:
So then what is the essence of chan?

Astus wrote:
"since the past this teaching of ours has first taken nonthought (wunian 無念) as its central doctrine (zong 宗), the formless (wuxiang 無相) as its essence (ti 體), and nonabiding (wuzhu 無住) as its fundamental (ben 本)."
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK Edition, p 43)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Approach in the West: Scientific vs Spiritual?
Content:
Ayu said:
one side wants to have scientific approach only, leaving out all those traditional prayers and rituals. The other side finds that strange and disagrees.

Astus wrote:
Or: one side doesn't understand the benefits of prayers and rituals in cultivation, the other side is a group of romantics. So I'd say both sides think that it's a religious-traditional thing only. And that creates this false controversy of "scientific or spiritual". Better go for Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Approach in the West: Scientific vs Spiritual?
Content:
Ayu said:
I was refering to science as a term for the exclusive belief in everything that can be proved scientificly. That belief in it's pure form doesn't accept anything that isn't evidenced.

Astus wrote:
That does not exist on the human level. Also, that kind of "pure science" is a methodology, a technique of investigation, not a claim or statement, so it is not in the same category as being spiritual, or any view. Not to mention the problem that if one can actually understand the scientific proof, it is not a matter of believing it or not. So, I think that the "scientific approach" is simply physicalism, another word for materialism, the extreme view of annihilation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
jundo cohen said:
the teachings of Soto/Caodong or Rinzai/Linji lines

Malcolm said:
Chan/Zen is ... the teachings of Bodhidharma and his followers

Astus wrote:
So, Zen is a set of teachings. Discussion of those teachings is the primary purpose of the Zen section on this forum. That is quite an intellectual activity. And since this topic, like the others, discusses Zen teachings, there is no lack of it.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Now you got it!

Astus wrote:
What makes you say that? I certainly did not get anything.

How can you expect keeping Zen in the Zen forum if you don't specify what Zen is?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
jundo cohen said:
You are trying to have a discussion of Zen leaving the Zen out of the Zen.

Astus wrote:
What is Zen? (so we don't omit it)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
conebeckham said:
I mean that it can be a "defense mechanism" against hearing or thinking about things that make one uncomfortable, or it can be used as a defense in argumentation.

Astus wrote:
Like when they say "all is relative", but what they mean is "I don't care what you mean, I know I am right".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Need to see through them.

Astus wrote:
How are they seen through?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
conebeckham said:
The caveat I'd add is that sometimes it's not "just a style"--you know?

Astus wrote:
If you refer to not getting stuck with words, that's not a unique concept of Zen. It's been around since the Nikayas.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Useful, of course, for getting around in the world.

Astus wrote:
1. I might be missing something, but so far I have not seen that knowledge of Buddhist teachings is a lucrative business.
2. Getting around in the world is the best anyone can expect, being free from all the entrapments and allures, moving like clouds.

jundo cohen said:
An obstruction to the heart of the matter.

Astus wrote:
1. From thinking comes understanding, from understanding comes realisation.
2. Thoughts are not hindrances in Zen.

jundo cohen said:
if one then scoffs at the anti-intellectual aspect of Zen, and the thinking non thinking aspect

Astus wrote:
Non-thinking and anti-intellectual slogans are two different things.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
conebeckham said:
In Zen, as I understand it,(based on very little exposure,) such sorts of analysis, intellectual reasoning, conceptual elaboration, are beside the point at best, and antithetical to the  Zen path at an extreme.

Astus wrote:
The largest amount of canonical works by a specific school of Buddhism in East Asia is by the Zen tradition. This itself shows a strong conceptual and literary aspect.

Many of the famous teachers of the past have produced written teachings, and a number of them have even engaged in systematic philosophising. And those who appear only in stories were also apparently familiar with the scriptures to the extent to be able to freely quote them.

Historically speaking, those who were abbots - i.e. most of the "patriarchs/ancestors" - were members of the educated elite who interacted with the top echelons of the aristocracy and literati in order to ensure the stability of their monastic institutions.

The iconoclastic and anti-intellectual style of Zen is really just a style, as sophisticated and artificial as calligraphy, or a weird piece of modern art.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Essence of Chan
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
That may be, but how do you get there? One sure-fire way to do so is to start with the instructions above.

Astus wrote:
It can be a start, but it's more like the middle part if it's about gradual instructions. But it's hardly Chan, much less its essence.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
... the specialty of Zen, which is the separate transmission outside of doctrine.

Astus wrote:
It's buddha to buddha, mind to mind. Not a transmission of words and methods. The skilful means of a bodhisattva comes from wisdom. Wisdom comes from seeing appearances to be unborn. Seeing comes from understanding. Understanding comes from clear explanations. The clarity of explanations depend on the flexibility of the teachers, the efficient use of skilful means. If "Zen style" works, good. If it creates confusion and distrust, it is not good at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Approach in the West: Scientific vs Spiritual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
None of the above.

I believe in the direct way to point to the heart of the matter. Anyone can confirm for oneself that no matter what experience occurs, it's unreliable. Because it's unreliable, there is nothing worth grasping. Cultivating that is what regulating, relaxing, and realising are about.

All of the above.

Skilful means is the application of wisdom in all sorts of situations. One better follows wisdom than recipes.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 7:07 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
once it has become a "style" to adhere to, or a set of things to not do, it has lost it's original purpose entirely.

Astus wrote:
It's easy to repeat words and forget the meaning. Has always been like that. See this one from Fayan Wenyi (885-958):

"But when it came to continuation, their descendants maintained sects and factionalized their ancestries. Not basing themselves on reality, eventually they produced many sidetracks, contradicting and clashing with one another, so that the profound and the shallow became indistinguishable.

Unfortunately, they still do not realize that the Great Way takes no sides; streams of truth are all of the same flavor. These sectarians spread embellishments in empty space and stick needles in iron and stone, taking disputation for superknowledge and lip-flapping for meditation. Sword-points of approval and disapproval arise, and mountains of egotism toward others stand tall. In their anger they become monsters, their views and interpretations ultimately turning them into outsiders. Unless they meet good friends, they will hardly be able to get out of the harbor of delusion. They bring on bad results, even from good causes."
( http://terebess.hu/zen/fayan.html#a2 )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Essence of Chan
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
enter the Chan state of mind

Astus wrote:
Chan mind is no mind. Whatever state it is, it is conditioned and impermanent. Therefore, the instruction has always been not to abide in any state.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: What if I am the only one...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Can't remember the source now, but there was a teaching I have encountered that said one should actually think that one is the last unenlightened being, and everyone else are bodhisattvas helping to achieve awakening.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Kensho mentioned in sutra?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides those who equate seeing nature with buddhahood, there were the teachers Zongmi, Yongming, and Jinul, who put Chan and Huayan together, and equated the initial insight with the early stages of the 52 levels of the bodhisattva path. Here is a summary of Jinul's thoughts from Robert E. Buswell: The Collected Works of Chinul, p 64-66:
As Chinul observes time and again throughout his writings, the success of any practice depends on a sudden awakening at the beginning of one's efforts to the fact of one's fundamental Buddhahood. Without the confidence that such experience brings, the long ages of struggle the bodhisattva contemplates would be unbearable for even the most enthusiastic of adepts. To induce this awakening is the purpose of "faith and understanding according to the complete and sudden teachings"-the practice, based on Hwaom theory, intended for the majority of students. The discussion which follows recapitulates the explication of Li T'ung-hsuan's thought given in Chinul's Complete and Sudden Attainment of Buddhahood.
The unmoving wisdom of Buddhahood, otherwise known as the wisdom of universal brightness, is the source of all dualistic phenomena including Buddhas and sentient beings. Through faith and understanding that this unmoving wisdom is identical to the discriminative thoughts of sentient beings, the individual realizes that even in his present deluded state he is, and indeed has always been, a perfect Buddha. By understanding this fact at the very beginning of the spiritual quest-at the first of the ten levels of faith the student becomes fully endowed with the wisdom and compassion of Buddhahood in potential form. This accomplishment was usually assumed to occur only at the arousing of the bodhicitta stage of the ten abiding sand only after the adept had supposedly passed through all ten levels of faith for ten thousand kalpas. But through the knowledge of this fundamental wisdom nonretrogressive faith is established, assuring the student's continued progress on the bodhisattva path and perfecting the other constituents of the ten stages of faith. Accordingly, the student is able to enter the initial abiding stage directly. At that stage there is immediate experience of the fact that he is a Buddha, and the former tacit faith and understanding are confirmed. With the tremendous potential of the "great effortless functioning" inherent in Buddhahood, the subsequent stages of the bodhisattva path are instantly completed. Consequently, the wisdom of universal brightness is not simply the origin of sentient beings and Buddhas: every accomplishment along the bodhisattva path reveals the operation of that fundamental wisdom. Thus faith and understanding are enough to consummate the immediate and full attainment of Buddhahood even when the adept has progressed no further than the normal level of the ordinary sentient being. This is the essence of the complete and sudden approach.
Although Buddhas and sentient beings are originally only the phantomlike manifestations of the fundamental wisdom of universal brightness, the defilements of passion and discriminative thought have narrowed that wisdom and obscured its brightness. Even though the bodhisattva who realizes this fundamental wisdom is completely endowed with the compassion and wisdom of Buddhahood, his ability to display that wisdom through expedient means of expression and spiritual powers is still inchoate. Consequently, he must continue to cultivate the wide-ranging practices and vows which are developed on the remaining stages of the bodhisattva path. Any defiling actions which might arise from the inertial force of habit must also be corrected; his awakening has given him the ability to see through these habits, however, so he is free to employ appropriate methods during his progression along the path until they subside. Once his practice has been perfected, he will have arrived in fact, as well as potential, at the stage of Buddhahood. Nevertheless, throughout all his subsequent development, the bodhisattva has in fact never strayed from the fundamental unmoving wisdom which was realized upon the initial awakening at the first of the ten stages of faith. This fundamental wisdom of universal brightness is thus the cause for the attainment of Buddhahood as well as its fruition-hence its importance in ChinuI's system of practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That is exactly what I meant by it, and what I think it means.

Astus wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

Wayfarer said:
Because it is related to the point that bliss is not a transient emotion that comes and goes. It is intrinsic to the nature of realisation itself as in the very quote that you posted on page 1: The true bliss of permanent quiescence—
The characteristic of nirvana—is suchlike.

Astus wrote:
So it is. At the same time, the unity of bliss-emptiness has made a more outstanding career in Vajrayana.

"Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 3, tr Yamamoto, p 29)

Kasyapa said further: "You, the Buddha, say that utmost peace is Nirvana. How can this be? Now, Nirvana means relinquishing the body and intellect. If one relinquishes the body and intellect, who is it that can become blessed with peace?" The Buddha said: "O good man! As an example: there is a man here. He eats some food. After partaking of it, he feels sick, desires to go out and vomit. After vomiting, he comes back. A person who was with him asks: "Have you got rid of the trouble you had? You have come back here again. " Such may be the case. The same applies to the Tathagata. He fully segregates himself from the 25 existences and eternally gains Nirvana, which is peace and bliss. There can [then] be no more of the topsyturvy inversions, no ending and no extinction. All feeling is done away with. This is the bliss of non-feeling. This non-feeling is eternal Bliss. We can never say that the Tathagata feels Bliss. So, utmost Bliss is none but Nirvana. Nirvana is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 7, tr Yamamoto, p 73; T12n375, vol5, p636b5-15)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That is why it's called paravritti, is it not?

Astus wrote:
That is a very Yogacara term referring to the transformation of the repository consciousness, so it is not per see about change of perception. Although probably we can take it to simply mean leaving behind habitual perception and acting, and accomplishing the mirror-like wisdom, however, in Yogacara at least, that applies only to the event of becoming a buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Isn't the real difference here between being aware of no view, no grasping and simply dully having no view? One is clarity, the other is basically nihilism disguised as meditation of no view. The first one is exactly my perception  of the "bliss" we are talking about.

Astus wrote:
Taking no view as the view is still an error. The options of falling into disinterest or unconsciousness are both the results of making no view a view. When there is just no view, it means the insight that all views are conditioned and insubstantial. At the same time, we always operate with some kind of view (thinking, clarity), the difference is in taking it as self or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
realising it relies on a complete transformation of perception and if we say 'well there's nothing to realise' then why not simply stay as we are?

Astus wrote:
To stay as we are would mean being lost in the concepts of gain and loss. Seeing that all is empty means that there is nothing that can be grasped. When there is nothing to be grasped, there is no attachment, and without attachment there is no suffering. But nothing to grasp doesn't mean total blankness, it means that all experiences constantly change, hence nothing to rely on. That is the non-abiding mind, but not simply mindlessness.

Wayfarer said:
Realisation pertains to the nature of reality, or to the 'nature of all experience' if you like. As I understand it, that is why realisation is for keeps, it doesn't come and go

Astus wrote:
The realisation is the realisation of all being in a flux. It is giving up the mistaken idea of permanence, and one that misconception is completely removed, there is no view attached to, and that lack of grasping doesn't come and go.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Heart-to-heart Transmission
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is a basic Zen idea. It is even an idiom in Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishin-denshin


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
"peaceful ease/comfort" for anraku 安楽. ... "安楽" had the meaning in Dogen's time or earlier in China of "peaceful/joyful ease/comfort" rather than "bliss" as "esctasy, delight, rapture"?

Astus wrote:
The word is the combination of "peace" and "happiness", where 樂 also means "harmony" and "music". Besides anraku's meaning as a name for Sukhavati, there is another explanation: "peaceful body, happy mind" (身安心樂) and "not threatened body is peaceful, not anxious mind is happy" (身無危險故安，心無憂惱故樂). So, I would say it's virtually nothing to do with ecstasy and rapture.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Experience is indeed samsaric, but realisation is of a different order. That is why 'what is good' is the opposite to 'what is bad' in the ordinary sense, but that the bliss of liberation is not simply some relative good. It is a 'good with no opposite', so it's of a different order to merely a good experience.

Astus wrote:
Zen and Mahamudra agree that what needs to be realised is buddha-nature, however, their methods and terminology somewhat differ. The realisation of buddha-nature in Zen means that one realises that there is nothing to realise. As for Mahamudra, from the same book:

"When the emptiness of physical and mental phenomena is directly experienced as a subjective reality and the mind is stable and able to maintain awareness, the luminous clarity of the mind gives rise to a sense of well-being that transcends both happiness and unhappiness. This is the experience of all-pervasive bliss, the goal of Mahamudra ·practice. When we no longer fixate on our thoughts and emotions but let them arise. without interference and without hope and fear, our minds will become blissfully clear."
(Mind at East, p 20-21)

We might suppose that with the realisation of emptiness, regardless if it's through Zen or Mahamudra, one attains the mentioned bliss. And that bliss, as noted earlier, is one of the four characteristics of buddha-nature. Since both systems agree that this bliss is not a feeling or emotion, the word "bliss" stands for the complete lack of "suffering" (duhkha), and that is the very meaning of nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
You mean, "otherwise" from it being infinite and eternal?

Astus wrote:
Otherwise, that is, apart from what's been listed above. As for being "infinite and eternal", it is only figurative speech, like calling it the "bliss of nirvana". Sounds good, but it is meant to express a contrast between the drawbacks of samsara and the advantages of liberation, therefore it is not a pleasurable experience at all, since all such experiences are samsaric.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Astus wrote:
坐禅は...安楽の法門なり - "The zazen ... is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease" ( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html )

The expression for "joyful ease" is anraku 安楽 (Ch. 安樂), where raku 楽 is sukha (i.e. 大樂 - mahasukha, 極樂世界 - Sukhavati). Also, anrakukoku 安楽国 is another name for Sukhavati. So Dogen might wanted to counter Pure Land teachings.

In ch 7 of the Platform Sutra bliss is mentioned in relation to nirvana, the ultimate reality.

"Even though the eon-[ending] fire burns to the floor of the ocean
And the winds pound upon the mountains like drums,
The true bliss of permanent quiescence—
The characteristic of nirvana—is suchlike."

There is a poem " https://beingwithoutself.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/enjoyingtheway.pdf " (Ledaoge 樂道歌), but it doesn't speak about bliss (le 樂, i.e. enjoying) in particular.

Otherwise, it seems that bliss/sukha doesn't play any particular role, beyond it being one of the four characteristics of buddha-nature in the Nirvana Sutra. At the same time, it is one of the " http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=535 " (pleasure), so it is to be avoided.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: The Perfectly Imperfect Beyond Perfection/Imperfection (Zen) Buddha
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I see much focus on "Wisdom" but not "knowledge" as such. Perhaps Astus can set me straight, as I may be missing the point.

Astus wrote:
I don't think there is any sensible difference made in Zen between prajna and jnana. Prajna is seeing nature, and jnana is seeing nature. Also, the word for jnana is 智, that is usually translated as wisdom, as in the following passage from Dogen (talking about Huineng first hearing the Diamond Sutra):

"This is just the truth of “Those who have wisdom, if they hear [the Dharma],/Are able to believe and understand at once.” This “wisdom” is neither learned from other people nor established by oneself: wisdom is able to transmit wisdom, and wisdom directly searches out wisdom. In the case of the five hundred bats, wisdom naturally consumes their bodies: they have no body and no mind [of their own] at all. In the case of the ten thousand swimming fishes, due neither to circumstances nor to causes, but because wisdom is intimately present in their bodies, when they hear the Dharma they “understand at once.” It is beyond coming and beyond entering: it is like the spirit of spring meeting springtime, for example. Wisdom is beyond intention and wisdom is beyond no intention. Wisdom is beyond consciousness and wisdom is beyond unconsciousness. How much less could it be related to the great and the small? How much less could it be discussed in terms of delusion and realization? The point is that although [the Sixth Patriarch] does not even know what the Buddha-Dharma is, never having heard it before and so neither longing for it nor aspiring to it, when he hears the Dharma he makes light of his debt of gratitude and forgets his own body; and such things happen because the body-and-mind of “those who have wisdom” is already not their own. This is the state called “able to believe and understand at once.”"
(Inmo, SBGZ, vol 2, BDK Edition, p 156)

Huineng in the Platform Sutra talks about wisdom (prajna 智 & 智慧) in chapter two, however, he talks about the four wisdoms (catvari jnanani 四智) in chapter seven, where we read (BDK Edition, p 60-61):

Zhitong said further, “How might I hear the meaning of the four wisdoms?”
The master said, “If you understand the three bodies, then you will understand the four wisdoms. How could you ask any further? If I were to speak of the four wisdoms apart from the three bodies, this would be called ‘having the bodies but being without wisdom.’ This would be to have wisdom but make it into non-wisdom.” He preached another verse, saying:

The great round mirror wisdom is pure in nature.
The wisdom of the universally same nature is without illness in mind.
The seeing of the wondrous contemplation wisdom is not [the result of] merit.
The wisdom that creates that which is accomplished is identical to the round mirror [wisdom].
The five and the eighth, sixth, and seventh [consciousnesses] transform [through] results and causes.

These are just names that are used, with no true nature.
If one’s sentiments linger not in the places of their transformations,
In profusion does one generate in the locus of permanence — the samādhi of the dragon.

Zhitong [achieved] sudden enlightenment to the nature and the wisdoms. He then offered this verse:

The three bodies are originally the essence of oneself.
The four wisdoms are fundamentally the understanding of the mind.
The bodies and wisdoms interpenetrate without hindrance,
Responding to things in accordance with forms.

All [deliberate] activation of cultivation is false activity.
To guard one’s abiding is not true serenity.
The wondrous purport has been illuminated by the master.
I will forever forget [all] defiled names.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are nama and rupa. Rupa is the category of the five physical appearances, nama is for all the mental phenomena. Both are things we know of, so they are experienced as they occur. Problems of duality, the relationship between mind and matter, come up only when we consider them separate substances. The solution lies in understanding them to be simply experiences that are only nominally divided up.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:
Astus wrote:
An immaterial consciousness cannot really be included in scientific investigation.

"If it can't be measured, that means, by definition, it can't affect anything."
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI, 1:00-1:05)

Even Aryadeva rules out the assumption.

"Intangible things do not
Produce so-called motility.
Thus the life force is not
Agent of the body's movements."
(Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way, 10.230, p 217)

And the root of the problem is really the belief in a self.

"Is the body the same as the soul? ... Is the body one thing, and the soul another? ...  that too has not been declared by the Blessed One"
"But the Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, does not assume of the eye that 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' ..."
"But the Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. ..."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.007.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
krodha said:
In my opinion, that passage isn't saying that one awakens to fully omniscient buddhahood in one fell swoop. Just that the reality of what buddhahood entails is directly encountered through awakening [bodhi].

Astus wrote:
Do you know of teachings in Zen, and in its Soto branch, where they establish the distinction you talk about?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
krodha said:
Awakening to instant buddhahood is essentially unheard of

Astus wrote:
from http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms04.pdf:

the Sotoshu doctrine is to realize (joto) shikantaza (just sitting) and sokushin zebutsu (the mind itself is Buddha).
In “Gakudo Yojinshu” (“Points to Watch in Practicing the Way”), joto is explained by Dogen Zenji as follows:

Joto (realizing) is to directly realize Buddhahood with this body-mind. In other words, it is not to change the former state of body-mind into some other special state but just to follow the realization of the other (one’s teacher). It is called jikige (right here) or joto.

The fundamental Sotoshu teaching is that of realizing Buddhahood through shikantaza and sokushin zebutsu in each moment. Therefore sokushin zebutsu, as well as shikantaza, is a very important term and a basic teaching for Soto Zen Buddhists.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Question: how do you know you're not kidding yourself?

Astus wrote:
One is always kidding oneself. "I am correct." - that's a thought. "I am wrong." - that's another thought. Creating an identity of either is the basic error.

Wayfarer said:
there's a process of assessment

Astus wrote:
There is no measuring stick. It's up to whatever the local teacher considers acceptable.

Wayfarer said:
What if you have not really grasped the point of the teaching but you think that you have?

Astus wrote:
Ultimately, all views are wrong. What amounts to correct view in Buddhism is what helps in abandoning unwholesome qualities, developing wholesome qualities, and letting go of attachments.

Wayfarer said:
If you're a solo practitioner, is there anything to tell you that your understanding is erroneous?

Astus wrote:
There are a lot of things, starting with the sutras and shastras. Correct view develops from learning. Besides that, zazen is not simply a practice, but also verification. That is, if one pays attention to one's experiences, it becomes crystal clear that there is no physical or mental phenomena that is permanent. That's Zen's direct approach. Otherwise, one can follow the instructions for insight meditation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
jundo cohen said:
It is the seeming paradox of "original enlightenment", namely, if we are already "Buddha" why don't we know it and act like it? If there is "nothing to seek and do", does that mean that we don't have to seek it?

Astus wrote:
Everything is already empty, never has been otherwise. Ignorance itself is empty, an illusion, and not knowing that is how ignorance functions. This story of Dogen searching for an answer, wasn't that Keizan's invention, something nowhere mentioned in Dogen's works? It is a sort of basic question anyway, like asking if there is no self why do we think there is.

jundo cohen said:
We begin at the bottom of the mountain, lost in ignorance. ... However, along the way, we realize that the entire mountain has been Buddha all along, top to bottom, although the fellow at the bottom and start of the climb did not recognize so until the fog of ignorance began to clear.

Astus wrote:
That is very much what the bodhisattva path is, moving from stage to stage, accumulating merit, deepening wisdom, and at the same time it's prajnaparamita all along. Zen is shedding body-mind completely, not just one piece at a time.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I feel your two posts reveal another one of the "paradox-non-paradoxes" of Soto Zen ... attaining by non-attaining, goalless goaling and such ... "joyful ease" and "diligence" ...

Astus wrote:
I don't see any paradox here. (Although you conclude the same eventually)

"there is not the slightest interval between establishment of the mind, training, bodhi, and nirvana"
(Gyoji, in SBGZ, vol 2, BDK Edition, p 163)

jundo cohen said:
in a moment of Shikantaza, one can experience simply and clearly what Nagarjuna and Dogen were pointing to through all their words.

Astus wrote:
That should be the case, yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't think its a matter of resonance but a matter of capacity. Personally, I think Zen is actually high capacity stuff--- but high teachings require students with high capacity to receive it.

Astus wrote:
"A person who seems superficially dull but has a sincere aspiration will attain enlightenment more quickly than one who is clever in a worldly sense. Although he could not recite even a single verse, Cudapanthaka, one of the disciples of the Buddha, gained enlightenment during one summer practice period because he had earnest aspiration."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/common_html/zuimonki/02-20.html )

"There is a saying in the secular world, “I sell gold, but no one will buy it.” The Way of the buddhas and patriarchs is also like this. It is not that they begrudge the Way; even though it is always being offered, no one will accept it. To attain the Way does not depend on whether you are inherently sharp or dull witted. Each one of us can be aware of the dharma. Slowness or quickness in attaining the Way depends on whether you are diligent or indolent. The difference between being diligent or indolent is caused by whether your aspiration is resolute or not. Lack of firm aspiration is caused by being unaware of impermanence. Ultimately speaking, we die moment by moment, not residing for even a little while. While you are alive, do not spend your time in vain."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/common_html/zuimonki/06-09.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
krodha said:
The bodhisattva path begins with the direct realization championed by Dogen.

Astus wrote:
Where is that assertion from? Dogen is fairly clear that zazen is complete 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." ( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I understand it, the essence of Dogen's message is zazen, and the essence of zazen is hishiryo, also called shinjindatsuraku. What is non-thinking, dropping off body and mind? The experience that whatever appears there is nothing to grasp. And what is the essence of Nagarjuna's teaching? It is that all phenomena are without substance, hence there is nothing to grasp. So, in terms of goal, they likely agree. In terms of method, however, there is the difference between the gradual stages of the bodhisattva taught by Nagarjuna, and the direct realisation taught by Dogen.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
DGA said:
The best basis of comparison would be to the conventions that are established in Tendai-shu at the present, since that's where we are and what we have available.

Astus wrote:
Then that should be used to clarify if a group fits the category of Tendai, don't you think?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Anders said:
You can genetically modify an apple to be something other than an apple.

Astus wrote:
Can buddhas then modify beings to be enlightened?

Anders said:
Beings are exposed to the fruits of other people's actions all the time. And profoundly influenced by them.

Astus wrote:
If experiences are not the products of previous actions, then karma does not exist. On the other hand, it is taught that both good and bad actions done by others to oneself are results of one's previous deeds.

Anders said:
Basically, you want minds to be souls. Something only you posses and whose autonomy is sheltered from other souls.

Astus wrote:
If one is not subject to one's own delusion only, then liberation is not possible.

Anders said:
This is not an a priori protected privilege in samsara.

Astus wrote:
It is a question of what karma means.

Anders said:
I get that you have trouble reconciling these concepts. But you aren't really representing any strand of Buddhism with your presentation here.

Astus wrote:
I try to follow the generally accepted teachings on karma, and consider that more significant than teachings on telepathy and such. But if you have another idea, please tell.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
DGA said:
And besides, this thread is still in the fact-finding stage.

Astus wrote:
The reason I mentioned Saicho was to point out that it's not the fact of lineage that is the most important, but the teachings provided. So, perhaps the facts that should be established are whether what they teach there matches those of Saicho or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
DGA said:
whatever his qualifications may be, they correspond to those of something other than Tendai.

Astus wrote:
That's an example of what the idea of lineage is for. To claim authenticity for those who belong to it, and exclude everyone else. As far as I know, Tendai had more than one group in China, and Saicho was not appointed as anything, but he spent less than a year there over all, mostly gathering texts. Should we then debate his qualifications?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
pothigai said:
No, brain states.

Astus wrote:
I'm unaware of such a connection between brain and thoughts in Buddhism. Maybe there are such ideas in Vajrayana, but not anywhere else. Although the Visuddhimagga talks about observing another's blood colour (12.9, p 402-403), on the one hand there is no actual change in colour of the blood, on the other it is a preliminary practice to simply knowing the mind of others' (i.e. arupaloka beings don't have hearts). So actually even there is no explanation of how it can happen.

Beyond that, as it is taught in Prajnaparamita teachings (and Zen), the way the mind of other beings are known is through realising emptiness.

"Moreover, Subhuti, thanks to this perfection of wisdom the Tathagata wisely knows immeasurable and incalculable beings as they really are. And that through the absence of own-being in beings."
(PP8000 12.3)

It is said in the T’an-mo-ho-yen p’in (Mahāyānastutiparivarta): “If the minds and mental events of all beings existed essentially and in reality (tattvatas) and were not false, the Buddha could not know the minds and mental events of all beings. But because the minds and mental events of all beings are essentially and really false, without coming (āgati) or going (gati), the Buddha knows the minds and mental events of all beings.”
To take an example: if the bhikṣu is greedy (adhyavasita), he does not receive offerings (pūjā), but if he has no ulterior motive, he lacks for nothing. It is the same for the mind (citta). If it imagines (vikalpayati) and grasps at characteristics (nimittāny udgṛhṇāti), it does not find the truth and, not finding the truth, it cannot penetrate or know the minds and mental events of all beings. On the other hand, if it does not grasp at characteristics and does not imagine anything, it finds the truth and, finding the truth, it penetrates and knows the minds and mental events of all beings without encountering any obstacles.
(MPPS, vol 4, p 1503-1504)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
pothigai said:
My understanding would be that thoughts have in part have a physical basis and are thus not entirely private. The subjective experience of the thoughts is private, but the physical basis for them arising is not, so theoretically it could be accessed by other sentient beings.

Astus wrote:
What physical basis do you mean? Seeing the same vase?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Anders said:
"Our own"? That doesn't sound very dependently originated. Nothing in Samsara is wholly private.

Astus wrote:
Causal consistency. From an apple seed an apple tree grows, not a pear tree. Dependent origination includes that every being experiences the fruits of their own actions, not another's. How is it not wholly private?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 7:29 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
How do you explain what happened to you?

Astus wrote:
My approach: Don't question the experience. Question the explanation. That's because of the same reason as what happens on a magic show. It looks real, but you know it's false. If you just believe your eyes, you accept that it's paranormal.

There are various plausible ways to approach telepathy and other abilities like that. The most reliable would be to test if it's even something one can actually do, to rule out coincidence and memory distortion. But I think that's never really happened. So I'd not go that way, and rather say that abilities are something else than what generally people think about them.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: Sanbo Kyodan question
Content:
DGA said:
I'm interested in learning a bit more about the curriculum

Astus wrote:
From http://www.desertlotuszen.org/koan-curriculum.html:

Our curriculum is as follows: 

1. Initial koan to open the body of reality.

We use a range of koans for this purpose, according to need and affinity. Examples are Zhaozhou’s No, Yunmen’s Medicine, What is your original face before your parents were born?, Linji’s The true person with no rank, Zhaozhou when times of great difficulty visit us, how shall we meet them? Zhaozhou said “Welcome.”

When this koan starts to open up there is an extensive process of exploration using checking questions to make the view clear and to teach the language of koans. The What is the sound of one hand? koan is included in this process. The final koan in the checking process is What is the source? 

2. Miscellaneous Koans. By tradition the first koan in the miscellaneous collection is Stop the sound of that distant temple bell. These koans include a lot of explorations of emptiness. 

3. The Gateless Barrier (Wumenguan)
4. The Blue Cliff Record (Piyen lu)
5. The Book of Serenity 
6. The Five Ranks of Dongshan
7. The Sixteen Bodhisattva vows
8. Entangling Vines

Following the completion of this course senior people usually work on other books.

The Record of Linji
The Kido Koans
The Record of Zhaozhou


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Now the mechanism for this procedure, how it works exactly, is not really touched upon in the Abhidharma (and seems to contradict some of the theory therein) and yet...

Astus wrote:
This itself I find problematic. There is no sensible explanation in (or outside) Buddhism for telepathy.

Sherab Dorje said:
Personally I have experienced a phenomenon that can be described as telepathy.

Astus wrote:
I assume most of us have. However, a number of deja-vus don't mean there's a glitch in the Matrix.

Sherab Dorje said:
I believe that this idea that we are somehow completely and utterly seperate physically and mentally from our surroundings has been proven false by yogi and scientists alike.  So this idea that thoughts exist solely within the confines of your mind (head or brain) is a little misleading.  It seems that reality is a little more fluid than that.

Astus wrote:
If it's allowed for minds to mingle, to lose integrity, then it also allows for one mind to manipulate another. However, our experiences are our own, just like our actions. So, we can share thoughts and even organs, but not deeds and perceptions.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 8:53 AM
Title: Re: Sanbo Kyodan question
Content:
DGA said:
he prefers working with traditions that have proven histories, rather than trying a "make it up as you go along" practice and hoping for the best

Astus wrote:
If it's about Zen, the so called transmission is only about the enlightened mind. Passing on methods is a different matter, and something that theoretically Zen is not supposed to be bound by. Although we can say that transmission matters only when one wants to, other times it's disregarded.

DGA said:
I'm not convinced that SK is merely a make-it-up-as-you-go-along organization.  I say this because it has endured for long enough to suggest that if it were a bit of trivial fluff, it would have floated away in the breeze by now.

Astus wrote:
That argument doesn't hold. Just because something is old and/or popular is no proof of quality. There are numerous nonsense beliefs in the world that are both popular and old.

DGA said:
is there a distinctive logic by which the curriculum or pedagogy or typical development of the student (choose your wording) is laid out in SK?  Does it "hang together" as a singular, integral path, or does it feel chockablock?

Astus wrote:
They follow the "Harada-Yasutani koan-curriculum, which is derived from Hakuin's student Takuju. It is a shortened koan-curriculum, in which the socalled "capping phrases" are removed. The curriculum takes considerably less time to study than the Takuju-curriculum of Rinzai" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFord200642.E2.80.9343-103 ).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Compassion practice in Zen
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Astus, what is advice given to people who have this emptiness sickness?

Astus wrote:
There are all sorts of ways to approach it, and those one can find in the scriptures, teachings, and hear advice from wise friends.

For a generic answer, I have three.

1. Emptiness is empty. Grasping at whatever state, whatever feeling, is still attachment. One has to let go of everything. Or as for instance Baizhang put it in three stages: Do not grasp anything. Do not grasp not grasping. Let go of even that. Daehaeng says practically the same, instructing to die again and again. The same can be seen in Jizang's formulation of the four levels of two truths. The point is, when everything is truly released, boundless wisdom and compassion can function unhindered.

2. Focus on interdependence. After cessation comes clear observation, as described in the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana. It is seeing clearly how karma works, how suffering emerges, how beings are bound by their ignorance. It is letting go of the hundred-foot pole (aloofness) to "appear with his whole body in the ten parts of the world". Or as the Genjokoan says "To forget ourselves is to be experienced by millions of things and phenomena." This is where one can learn not to fear appearances, because they are all illusory. These are the 9th and 10th pictures of the ten bulls. This is contemplating the function of the mind instead of its essence, because eventually it turns out to be not two different things.

3. Trust in buddha-nature. There can be this fear that if everything is let go, it will be just a big nothingness, total obliteration. Because of that fear, we want to keep control to ourselves, want to be able to influence things. That is basically our core belief in a self, and the source of all problems. The first option mentioned is when we see there is nobody in control. The second option is to see that all things change according to causes and conditions, so there is nothing to control. This third option is to let our inherent buddha-nature manage everything. This can be mistaken in two extreme ways: either as inactivity, or as following impulses mindlessly. Instead of those two, one should face every situation openly, so that buddha-activity can manifest. How to be open? When something comes, let it come. When something goes, let it go. When something is present, let it be. Letting go is not worrying about the past and the future. Letting be is embracing without hesitation. This is possible because one has faith that all is taken care of by the buddha-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Compassion practice in Zen
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
I feel the compassion aspect has been sorely lacking from my practice, making me become aloof and detached from others.

Astus wrote:
That can happen when emptiness is mistaken for apathy, disinterest, and such. It is a known "sickness" in Zen.

There was an old woman who supported a hermit. For twenty years she always had a girl, sixteen or seventeen years old, take the hermit his food and wait on him. One day she told the girl to give the monk a close hug and ask, “What do you feel just now?”
The hermit responded,

An old tree on a cold cliff;
Midwinter – no warmth.

The girl went back and told this to the old woman. The woman said, “For twenty years I’ve supported this vulgar good-for-nothing!” So saying, she threw the monk out and burned down the hermitage.
(Entangling Vines, case 162, tr Kirchner)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
But in actual fact, the sensory experience of buddhas is not confined to their six sense gates in the way ours are.

Astus wrote:
And this is where the interpretation and view of the teachings come in. For Chan the mind is buddha and there is no other buddha to be found. What you talk about, however, are what could be termed an external buddha. For Chan all the teachings talk about are to see into the nature of mind. What you refer to, however, is an interpretation where the teachings provide accounts of other beings.

"The difference between Zen and the teaching sects is like the difference between one who gets hit by an arrow and dies on the spot and one who sees the incident and stands on the side saying this and that about why the person died. The one who sees directly into his own nature is the Zen man; the one who talks about it is from the teaching sect."
(Bassui: Mud and Water, p 7)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
They are "supernatural" compared to your abilities and mine, which is actually the point.

Astus wrote:
What I meant is that such abilities are not about magic powers (or synesthesia), but that categories of experiences are the works of conceptual discrimination, and concepts are interrelated and interpenetrate each other.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
But do they actually? A buddha can taste with his sight, smell with his fingers and hear with his tongue, etc.

Astus wrote:
Dongshan said the following poem:

"How amazing, how amazing!
Hard to comprehend that nonsentient beings expound the Dharma.
It simply cannot be heard with the ear,
But when sound is heard with the eye, then it is understood."
(Record of Tung-shan, p 26)

Zhiyan says about Indra's net and interpenetration:

"The explanation according to the greater vehicle says that the great and small can interpenetrate by virtue of transformation by psychic power, or it says that they interpenetrate through a bodhisattva's power, or that they interpenetrate because they are nondual. This is not the same as the explanation of the unitary vehicle."
(Entry into the Inconceivable, p 136)

You might consider those abilities of the Buddha as supernatural abilities, but in Chan that is not so.

"On the nose is an eye that discerns fragrance and stench.
The Dharma sound universally spreads to all senses.
All who hear clarify the genuine truth.
An enlightened person is widely awakened to the mind that breaks through emptiness."
(Dogen: Eihei Koroku, p 611)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
We have no evidence, apart from perhaps Bodhidharma, of any kind of sudden awakening school in India.

Astus wrote:
I did not mean anything like that. Just in general the source of sutras and treatises that are of Indian (and Central Asian) origin.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Revise to "...when the Indian Mahāyāna view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life," then we can agree.

Astus wrote:
I'm OK with that, if we modify it to "Late-Indian Mahayana", or something to a similar extent. After all, Chinese Buddhism has Indian origins as well, but then it's developed on a separate path, and that's why even Xuanzang's teachings have not been as widely accepted as Fazang's.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
I am pretty certain I don't agree with the characterization of Mahāyāna ārya practice above.

Astus wrote:
That's what normally happens in every characterisations to those relegated to a lower position. One of the reasons for the disagreements between Tibetan and EA Buddhism is that they do not share the same view of the Mahayana teachings. Naturally, when the Tibetan view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Are these the sayings of 'an ordinary fellow?' Are 'ordinary fellows' 'absolutely deep, still and void, and  'devoid of ego and personality forever''?

Astus wrote:
This is just what no-thought (wunian 無念) is, as said in the previous section. What "ordinary fellow" signifies is that the six senses function as before, the difference is in whether there is attachment.

Wayfarer said:
Related point: what original term is being translated as 'mind' in these verses? It might have a much more profound meaning that what moderns understand by the term, which I suspect is much closer to what Zen would call 'discursive thought'.

Astus wrote:
It's possible to check, but it is a case by case investigation.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is certainly a Mahāyāna doxographical claim. And further, what is the difference then between a bodhisattva and buddha? This distinction in the one that you really fail to tease out.

Astus wrote:
"To awaken to the incomplete truth of voidness of self and then practice is inferior-vehicle dhyana. To awaken to the true principle of the dual voidness of self and dharmas and then to practice is great vehicle dhyana. (All four of the above types show such distinctions as the four [dhyanas of the realm of] form and the four [concentrations of the] formless [realm].) If one's practice is based on having all-at-once awakened to the realization that one's own mind is from the outset pure, that the depravities have never existed, that the nature of the wisdom without outflows is from the outset complete, that this mind is buddha, that they are ultimately without difference, then it is dhyana of the highest vehicle. This type is also known by such names as tathagata-purity dhyana, the one-practice concentration, and the thusness concentration."
(Zongmi on Chan, p 103)

"There are many methods in practicing Buddhism. The Lesser Vehicle  practices “eradicating afflictions.” The Great Vehicle (Mahayana) “transforms afflictions.” In the Ultimate Vehicle, “afflictions are bodhi.” Each method is centered on the mind. In the end, they all enable sentient beings to attain unsurpassed complete enlightenment.

Those who practice the Lesser Vehicle take afflictions as real; therefore, they must exterminate them. They still have the concept of subject and object; therefore, there is still attachment to the dharmas. They only realize the emptiness of self and enter into partial nirvana.
       
Those who practice the Great Vehicle use the method of “transformation (of the mind)” because they understand that amid our afflictions there is our inherent Buddha nature. It is like forging steel from iron. The nature of steel is within the wrought iron. If we throw away the pieces of iron, we will not be able to refine the steel. Similarly, “there is no water besides the waves.” Therefore, in Mahayana, bodhisattvas cultivate the myriad good practices of the six paramitas. By benefiting self and others, they transform afflictions, and return to their pure inherent nature. Just as when we practice charity for a long time, we will naturally diminish greed. By contemplation of compassion, anger will naturally subside. When we are diligent in the cultivation of actions, speech, and mind, we can overcome sloth. When the mind is scattered and confused, we must use samadhi to overcome delusive thoughts. This is known as “transformation.” The last of the six paramitas is “prajna.” Prajna overcomes ignorance. Our mind is filled with ignorance and confusion; it easily forms attachments to the external environment. If we can reflect inward, without falling into dualism, without the concept of subject and object, and attain “triple emptiness,” we will attain prajna paramita. We can then face each encounter with clarity and mindfulness, thereby extinguish all our afflictions.
      
In the Ultimate Vehicle, we neither transform our afflictions nor extinguish them; our mind is originally pure and lucid. This mind is inherent in everyone; we do not need to seek it externally. This is the Chan School’s principle of “affliction is bodhi; birth and death (samsara) is nirvana.”"
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Question: how is the awakening put forward in Chan different than realization of an Arhat?

Astus wrote:
See for yourself the differences described:

"Whoever knows that the mind is a fiction and devoid of anything real knows that his own mind neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Mortals keep creating the mind, claiming it exists. And Arhats keep negating the mind, claiming it doesn’t exist. But bodhisattvas and Buddhas neither create nor negate the mind. This is what’s meant by the mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist. The mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist is called the Middle Way."
(Bodhidharma: Wake-up Sermon)

"If one allows a thought to arise while seeing, one falls into heresy.  When one desires to exterminate birth and death, one falls into the Sravaka realm.   One who sees neither birth nor death and is aware only of cessation falls into the Pratyekabuddha realm.  However, one might ask: Originally the dharmas know no arising, so how can they be subject to cessation? The answer one might receive is: With this non-dualistic outlook - that is, having neither desire nor aversion - everything is Mind.  This alone is the Buddha of Supreme Awakening!"
(Huangbo: Chung-Ling Record)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
That's it then, just see the nature of the mind and you are omniscient? If this is case, would you then claim that first stage bodhisattvas have not seen the nature of the mind? Because they are certainly not omniscient.

Astus wrote:
As far as the fully sudden approach goes, only buddhas know it. Consider http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=329214#p329214, where Huangbo makes it clear what one is enlightened to directly and how it compares to the gradual path.

Also, Dazhu says:

Q: What is Sudden Enlightenment?
A: "Sudden" means instantly stopping false thought. "Enlightenment" means [awareness] that one attains nothing.

and

"Sudden Enlightenment means liberation during this lifetime. Just as a lion-cub, from the moment it is born, is a real lion, likewise anyone who practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method has, from the moment he begins his practice, already entered the Buddha-Stage. Just as the bamboo-shoots growing in springtime are not different from the parent bamboo-shoots, because they are also empty inside, likewise anyone who practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method to rid himself suddenly of false thought abandons, like the Buddhas, the sense of an ego and a personality forever. Being absolutely deep, still and void, he is, then, without an iota of difference, equal to the Buddhas. Thus, in this sense it can be said that the worldly is holy. If one practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method, he can transcend the three realms during this lifetime."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Realizing emptiness is not realizing "dharmakāya." The realization of the dharmakāya is attended by the twin omniscience concerning the nature of what exists and all that exists. Now, if you wish to redefine, or dumb down, dharmakāya to make it seem more attainable, I can't stop you. But it is an error to do so.

Astus wrote:
No need to dumb down anything. All three knowledges/wisdoms are included in seeing the nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So my remark was about the seemingly black-and-white nature of this approach: enlightenment being immediate and complete, with a 'miss being as good as a mile'.

Astus wrote:
One is either a buddha, completely free from ignorance, or not. I think that's a fairly mainstream position even in the gradual paths. Similarly, if one has attained any level of nobility, there is no way back from that, as it includes permanent eradication of some defilements. Consequently, one has either realised the nature of mind, the dharmakaya, or not. That does not mean one cannot have concepts about the nature of mind, and even correct views.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Direct interaction between minds contradicts karma.

Sherab Dorje said:
Why?

Astus wrote:
Mind is a stream of momentary phenomena. If two such streams cross, they become one stream. That's one part. The other part is that if one can connect to another mind directly, that means one person's thought becomes another's, so one's will becomes another's will, hence what one intends is what the other intends. And while it is possible that two people agree on something, and that can be called shared karma, if a mind can take control of another, that violates another's ability to make decisions.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 6:45 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Direct interaction between minds contradicts karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
What does "this" refer to?

Astus wrote:
The preceding line. This = studying the Way = always contemplating the self-nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
I'd thought that the character translated as Way in that instance ( 道 ), which is the same as Tao from Taoism, really does mean path, and is sometimes used to render the term Dharma.  I'd thought bodhi was rendered in another way.  Perhaps I'm missing some context here?

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is dao 道 translated as Way here. It has a wide variety of meanings in Buddhist texts.

A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms, William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous (excerpt)

A way, road; the right path; principle, Truth, Reason, Logos, Cosmic energy; to lead; to say.

佛教漢梵大辭典 (Chinese-Sanskrit Large Dictionary of Buddhism)

mārga, path, gati, pratipad; bodhi; bhikṣu; nyāya; adhvan, avacara, āśrama, gatika, gati-saṃdhi, caraṇa, cari, carī, caryā, jāti, dharma, naya, patha, pada, parāyaṇa, pratipatti, prahāṇa, bodhi-mārga, bhūmi, mārga-caraṇa, mārgaṇa, mārgatas, mārgatva, mārga-satya, yāna, rathyā, vartman, vidhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: One continuous mistake
Content:
DGA said:
Astus, for the purpose of this conversation--what is meant by "subitism"?  thanks

Astus wrote:
It is a term specifically created to mean the "doctrine of sudden enlightenment". Has its own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subitism.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Buddhas are not on a way. They have reached their destination.

Astus wrote:
It says "the Way", not "a way". It is a synonym for bodhi, for enlightenment.

"Studying the Way is to always contemplate the self-nature:
This is to be identical with all the buddhas."
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, p 53)

Malcolm said:
Once upon a time, first bhumi realization was common, now it has become very rare.

Astus wrote:
Even a thousand years ago the belief in the end times ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ages_of_Buddhism#Latter_Day_of_the_Law ) was popular.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nice theory, but that is about it, for the vast majority of persons, i.e. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Astus wrote:
It is still what complete sudden enlightenment means.

"This mind is the mind of no-mind. Transcending all characteristics, there is yet no difference between sentient beings and Buddhas. If you can just [attain] no-mind, then that is the ultimate [state of enlightenment]. 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. There are no further gradations of profundity, only the useless striving of successive eons."
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 16)

But, as you say, there are those of the opinion that it is beyond the abilities of most people, like Jinul:

"Although some have advocated sudden awakening/sudden cultivation, this is the access for people of extraordinary spiritual faculties."
(Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind, CWKB, vol 2, p 213)

As has been noted here before, from a practical perspective labels of stages have little relevance. One can go wrong with assuming full realisation and giving up, and can go wrong with having no faith in one's abilities and prospects. Dogen's concept of practice-enlightenment is meant to correct both, just like the teaching of sudden awakening followed by gradual cultivation. It is also possible to find historical and social reasons for both gradualist and subitist teachings. The intention behind both, however, is the same: to provide a way to liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is just a poetic restatement of Nāgarjuna's trope about the non differentiation of samsara and nirvana, but it does not address the core of my point.

Astus wrote:
Your point seems to be that afflictions need to be fully eliminated first, and only then one has attained full enlightenment. But Huineng says:

"If one [tries to] use the illumination of wisdom to destroy the afflictions, this is the interpretation of the two [Hinayana] vehicles [held by] those fit for the sheep and deer [carts]. ... Ordinary people see brightness and ignorance as different, but the wise comprehend that they are nondual in their nature. ... One abides in the afflictions without disruption; one resides in meditation without serenity. Not annihilationist and not permanent, neither coming nor going; neither located in an intermediate location nor in the internal and external; neither generated nor extinguished, permanently abiding without movement—this is called the Way."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, BDK Edition, p 80)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Are there any Zen sources that describe what Buddhahood is, in an externally-verifiable kind of way? If we're going to compare Zen to Indian Mahayana, this will be helpful. Otherwise, it feels like we may be comparing apples and oranges.

Astus wrote:
There are two options. One can go with the usual Mahayana descriptions. Or one can look at the teaching of the buddha being the mind. Those who choose the first one usually also talk about gradual purification and such. While those who go with the second option say that one should just realise it for oneself immediately.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nevertheless, until they are burnt away, one can still take birth in the three realms. Buddhas do not take birth in the three realms at all.

Astus wrote:
Dogen writes in Shoji (SBGZ, vol 4, BDK Edition, p 299-300):

"If a person looks for buddha outside of life and death, that is like pointing a cart north and making for [the south country of] Etsu, or like facing south and hoping to see the North Star. It is to be amassing more and more causes of life and death, and to have utterly lost the way of liberation. When we understand that only life and death itself is nirvana, there is nothing to hate as life and death and nothing to aspire to as nirvana. Then, for the first time, the means exist to get free from life and death.
...
This life and death is just the sacred life of buddha. If we hate it and want to get rid of it, that is just wanting to lose the sacred life of buddha. If we stick in it, if we attach to life and death, this also is to lose the sacred life of buddha. We confine ourselves to the condition of buddha. When we are without dislike and without longing, then for the first time we enter the mind of buddha. But do not consider it with mind and do not say it with words! When we just let go of our own body and our own mind and throw them into the house of buddha, they are set into action from the side of buddha; then when we continue to obey this, without exerting any force and without expending any mind, we get free from life and death and become buddha."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
The nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness. When you are in nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness, the latent afflictions which cause rebirth in the three realms are gradually burned away.

Astus wrote:
So you mean immunity in the sense that they are not activated, therefore they do not even come up to one's consciousness. But then, because they are latent, they are not active except in the right conditions anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Anders said:
Are you going to be able to recognise the moment and on top of that, be able to manifest transformative action?

Astus wrote:
It's up to each being what serves as a transformative moment. Hence buddhas manifest depending on beings' karma, and monks wander to find the right teacher.

Anders said:
Pouring our heart and soul into a life's work for the opportunity to make a difference like that in someone's life, if it comes. It's not about what is the superior path or inferior path, or what is the easiest all accomplishing path and so forth. It's about saving lives, man.

Astus wrote:
How are lives saved? If by that you refer to the teaching, the Dharma, then it is crucial to answer the question about the most efficient and appropriate way(s). For instance, the Pure Land path is said to be appropriate for all kinds of people, all capacities, and it has fairly simple teachings and practices. So no matter what situation, one can always recommend buddha-remembrance as the optimal solution, like Honen did. Because of that it sounds only logical what the http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/shoshinge.html says: "Sakyamuni Tathagata appeared in this world Solely to teach the ocean-like Primal Vow of Amida". How does Bodhidharma compare, going all the way from India to China? How many are saved by "this mind is buddha"? Also, to effectively save, shouldn't one already be in the position to do that? These and other similar questions are why I think it is worth probing the depth of the Chan pond. But if you think this is not how it is, please tell.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
There are two kinds of afflictions: kleśas and anuśaya; the former is active; the latter, dormant or inactive. By the end of the seventh bhumi all afflictions are totally eradicated, leaving only the knowledge obscuration, which is like an increasingly sheer veil.

Astus wrote:
What is immunity to afflictions then?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Right, this simply means that you are immune to the afflictions that you possess, not that you have eradicated them.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean "non-afflictive ignorance" / jneyavarana with immunity to afflictions? Otherwise, an affliction that does not afflict is not an affliction.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, if one still has afflictions, one is on the path of cultivation, at best. Buddhas have no afflictions, so Huineng's statement is pointing to ārya practitioners, not buddhas. Buddhas have no enervating afflictions to worry about at all, because they have been eradicated [by the eighth bhumi].

Astus wrote:
The teaching was addressed to a mixed group of lay and ordained people, so the audience should be considered ordinary beings, who all attain enlightenment at the end of the speech. The quote says that with the realisation of the sudden teaching the afflictions will be eliminated.

Here's the BTTS translation: "When you become enlightened to the Sudden Teaching, you do not grasp onto the cultivation of external things. When your own mind constantly gives rise to right views, afflictions and defilement can never stain you. That is what is meant by seeing your own nature." (若開悟頓教，不能外修，但於自心常起正見，煩惱塵勞常不能染，即是見性。)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So, are you saying there's no possibility that you're not 'off a hair'?

Astus wrote:
I don't think this is a topic about me, even if it is a common trend to turn everything into personal matters.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Anders said:
I think it is fine to say, from the POV of internal vision, that a moment of true practise is a moment of Buddhahood. That is, as I understand it, how it is to be experienced and how it is to be actualised.
I don't think it's equally fine to extrapolate from there that Buddhahood in all given contexts, is fully accomplished in a moment of seeing the nature.

Astus wrote:
One moment of buddhahood should be followed by further moments of buddhahood.

"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."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 28-29)

"If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature.
Good friends, 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."
(p 32)

Anders said:
But does it follow that a moment of seeing the nature gives access to the array of means that a Buddha has for transforming sentient beings? This is after all, the reason we talk about Buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
It is a matter of "correct view".

"What is ‘automatic salvation of the self-nature’? It is to use correct views to save the sentient beings of false views, afflictions, and stupidity within our own minds. Having correct views, we may use the wisdom of prajñā to destroy the sentient beings of stupidity and delusion, automatically saving each and every one of them."
(p 48)

Anders said:
you need to start looking at what the masters say about things like manifesting the Nirmanakaya and how to engender the wisdom of perfection of action.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, one of the most important points of the buddha-nature teachings is that the three bodies are found within the mind. It is not something developed. That is, once false thoughts are removed, it manifests automatically.

"If they were without these enervating defilements, wisdom would always be manifest and they would not depart from the self-natures. To be enlightened to this Dharma is to be without thought. To be without recollection, without attachment, to not activate the false and deceptive—this is to allow one’s self[-suchness]-nature to function. To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
(p 30-31)

"The person who has seen the nature apprehends [the dharmas] whether he posits them or not. He is autonomous in his going and coming, without stagnation or hindrance. He acts in response to the functions [of students], and he answers in response to their words. Always manifesting his nirmāṇakāya, he never departs from the selfnature. He attains the samādhi of autonomous disportment in the supernormal powers. This is called seeing the nature."
(p 74)

Anders said:
I think you need to apply a bit of two truths to this whole thing and get better at sorting out between practical and 'ultimate' concerns.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, if the validity of the sudden path is denied, then Zen is just a strange way of rephrasing the six paramitas and the gradual path of the bodhisattva. Why bother with that at all, if not for simply aesthetic (literary) reasons? My idea/vision is to take this view seriously and see where it goes. There are some studies on what a "sudden practice" is ( http://terebess.hu/zen/Practice-in-Shen-Hui.pdf, http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=31128&local_base=GEN01-MCG02, http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf,%20Mindfulness%20and%20Mindlessness%20in%20Early%20Chan.pdf ), just to clarify further.

There is another problem. If "seeing nature" amounts "only" to a beginning, further instructions are required. As you say, Hakuin provided them. But what about the others? In the first quote in this topic Danxia says that there's nothing else to do, and the same goes for most of the classical teachers as well. Sure, we can always claim that there were the secret personal instructions, but that's a very weak argument, and it makes the recorded teachings false. Plus, there is no point in not describing the whole path, as that's been already done by the sutras and numerous treatises. Also, when there was a Zen teacher who set up a gradual method, he discussed it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 5:02 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
you have written elsewhere many times that as far as you are concerned, buddhanature and emptiness are one and the same.

Astus wrote:
Yes. It is as Huangbo says,

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

Malcolm said:
If however by buddhanature you mean dharmakāya, well, than yes, only buddhas can see that. But your language is so imprecise as to be deceptive.

Astus wrote:
Buddha-nature is the dharmakaya as well.

"The non-abiding Mind is not green, yellow, red or white. It is not long or short, nor does it come or go. It is not pure or impure, nor does it have birth or death. It is only deep and permanent stillness. This is the non-abiding Mind, which is also called the Original Body. The Original Body is the Buddha's Body, which is also called the Dharmakaya."
(Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

"As to the three bodies, the pure dharmakāya is your nature, the perfect and complete saṃbhogakāya is your wisdom, and the thousand billion nirmāṇakāyas are your practices (i.e., saṃskāra, “mental activities”). To speak of the three bodies apart from the fundamental nature is called ‘having the bodies but being without wisdom.’ If you are enlightened to [the fact that] the three bodies have no self-natures, then you will understand the bodhi of the four wisdoms."
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, BDK Edition, p 60)

"If you wish to differ in no way from the patriarch-buddha, just don’t seek outside. The pure light in a single thought of yours—this is the dharmakāya buddha within your own house. The nondiscriminating light in a single thought of yours—this is the saṃbhogakāya buddha within your own house. The nondifferentiating light in a single thought of yours—this is the nirmāṇakāya buddha within your own house. Th is threefold body is you, listening to my discourse right now before my very eyes. It is precisely because you don’t run around seeking outside that you have such meritorious activities."
(Record of Linji, p 9, tr Sasaki)

However, Linji continues with this:

"According to the masters of the sutras and śāstras, the threefold body is regarded as the ultimate norm. But in my view this is not so. The threefold body is merely a name; moreover, it is a threefold dependency. A man of old said, ‘The [buddha-]bodies are posited depending upon manifested meaning; the [buddha] lands are postulated in keeping with essential substance.’ Therefore we clearly know that ‘dharma-natured bodies’ and ‘dharmanatured lands’ are no more than shimmering reflections."

And later he said (p 16-17):

"According to the masters of the sutras and śāstras, the dharmakāya is regarded as basic substance and the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya as function. From my point of view the dharmakāya cannot expound the dharma. Therefore a man of old said, ‘The [buddha-]bodies are posited depending upon meaning; the [buddha-]lands are postulated in keeping with substance.’ So we clearly know that the dharma-nature body and dharma-nature land are fabricated things, based on dependent understanding. Empty fists and yellow leaves used to fool a child! Spiked gorse seeds! Horned water chestnuts! What kind of juice are you looking for in such dried-up bones!"

That's because Zen's primary teaching is just the non-abiding mind (no-mind), the awareness without grasping, that is labelled the essential and ultimate teaching of the buddhas. Details beyond that are only a matter of skilful means.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
My only point is that this isn't the only perspective among Ch'an/Zen traditions, and this is legible in this very thread, and that's cool.

Astus wrote:
Certainly, there are various positions in that area, and it's perfectly fine.

"Some say that one first relies on all-at-once awakening and then can engage in step-by-step practice. Some say that relying on all-at-once practice, one step-by-step awakens. Some say that awakening and practice are both step-by-step. Some say that they are both all-at-once. Some say that the dharma has neither all-at-once nor step-by-step, that all-at-once and step-by-step are in the dispositions [of trainees]. Each of the above theories is significant."
(Zongmi on Chan, p 118)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think it should (also) be asked why bother with claiming some kind of lineage in the first place? Sot'aesan, founder of Won Buddhism, didn't need any, nor did Sangharakshita, founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community. Same goes for Daehaeng, founder of Hanmaum Seon Centres, and Thich Thanh Tu, founder of the new Truc Lam school; and likely many others throughout Asia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_new_religions ).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
I think if you understand "equipoise" in the sense Malcolm does, which is the recognition of one's Buddha-nature, then my question about the Danxia quotation makes sense.

Astus wrote:
Seeing buddha-nature is being a buddha. Dogen often likes to quote the Lotus Sutra: "No one but the buddhas (yuibutsu yobutsu 唯佛與佛 - this is also the title of chapter 91 of Shobogenzo) can completely know the real aspects of all dharmas".

"Although innumerable Bodhisattvas may well perfectly practise the paramitas [spiritual perfections], they might only reach the stage of the ten abodes [“bhumis”] and yet may not be able to see the Buddha-Nature."
"Such Bodhisattvas may well reach the stage of the ten soils [“bhumis” - stages of Bodhisattva development], and yet they cannot clearly see the Buddha-Nature. How could sravakas and pratyekabuddhas well see [it]?"
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 12, tr Yamamoto)

"If sravakas, pratyekabuddhas and the Bodhisattva of the ten abodes do not see the Buddha-Nature, we say "Nirvana". It is not "Great Nirvana". If they clearly see the Buddha-Nature, there is Great Nirvana."
(ch 29)

"The Buddha-Nature of beings is what all Buddhas can see; it is not what sravakas and pratyekabuddhas can know. All beings do not see the Buddha-Nature. That is why they are all bound up by defilement and repeat birth and death. When one sees the Buddha-Nature, no bonds of defilement can tie one up. Emancipation comes and one attains Great Nirvana."
(ch 34)

"To see the Buddha-Nature is to attain unsurpassed Enlightenment. To attain unsurpassed Enlightenment is to arrive at unsurpassed Great Nirvana."
(ch 36)

"Whoever sees his nature is a buddha; whoever doesn't is a mortal. But if you can find your buddha-nature apart from your mortal nature, where is it? Our mortal nature is our buddhanature. Beyond this nature there's no buddha. The buddha is our nature. There's no buddha besides this nature. And there's no nature besides the buddha."
(Bodhidharma, Bloodstream Sermon, tr Red Pine)

"To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
"If you recognize your own mind and see the nature, you will definitely accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
"If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood."
"To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, tr McRae)

"since the mind of all sentient beings is the same as original Buddha-Nature, there is no need to practice; for if one recognizes one's own Mind and sees one's own Nature, there is nothing at all to seek outside oneself."
(Huangbo, Wan-ling Record, tr Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
Question about the Danxia quotation you use here.  It seems to me that if one is advised against harboring doubt, that the teacher knows very well that doubt can emerge, and that the student may harbor it.  Is this an example of going in and out of equipoise?  For the purpose of this example, how does equipoise differ from realizing (or recognizing) Buddha-nature?

Astus wrote:
It is the doubt of questioning buddha-nature, it is the fear of the void, it is the confusion about how things are, it is the lack of faith in one's own mind. As for equipoise, that is still a conditioned experience based on ignorance about the emptiness of appearances, an approximation, but not the real wisdom. Seeing the nature is the first hand confirmation that there is nothing that can be grasped, so whether the mind is moving or still are no problem. That is knowing that the Buddha was a common being.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, this is exactly the distinction between an ārya's equipoise and post-equipoise. When in equipoise, one is in a state of realization, when not, then not, and one's realization remains at the level of a concept.

Astus wrote:
There is a difference between the two in that one can go in and out of equipoise, but realisation of buddha-nature is once and for ever (except for those advocating a sudden enlightenment followed by gradual practice system). So Danxia says, "Just eat and drink. Everyone can do that. Don’t harbor doubt."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
My frame of reference here is Seung Sahn Sunim's Compass of Zen.  But I think the first quotation you give in this post, the one by Moguja, articulates it succinctly.

Astus wrote:
Seung Sahn used a circle to describe a practitioner's progress. It goes gradually up to fully realising buddha-nature, so it's more like gradual practice, sudden enlightenment. Otherwise, he says in Compass of Zen when describing the purpose of Buddhism:

"If attain your mind—which means, if you attain your true self—then you become Buddha." (p 16)

"When you attain your true self, you become Buddha. But Buddha is not something special, and it is not something outside you. Buddha means that if you attain your true self, you attain your own mind." (p 25)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Anders said:
You are going to have to define what you mean by "realise buddha-nature" here.

Astus wrote:
Just the usual: no-thought. See last quote in http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=328785#p328785.

Anders said:
Atm, you sound more like an Osho-wallah to me than a Zen practitioner, so I must be missing something here.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
I am quite certain that Chan Buddhism contains the teachings about karma and knowledge obscurations. Why? Because they are discussed at length in the Lanka sūtra. Or has the Lankāvatāra Sūtra been demoted?

Astus wrote:
The Lankavatara Sutra has a special place in Chan, but not because of its contents, as it is hardly ever quoted at all, but because of the story in the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, from around 660) that Bodhidharma handed over the Lankavatara Sutra to Huike as a form of legitimising his teachings. Furthermore, as we know now from the Dunhuang texts Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma-treasure (Chuan Fabao Ji) and Record of the Masters and Disciples of the Lankavatara Sutra (Lengqie Shizi Ji), the Lankavatara Sutra had a prominent legitimising place in early Chan (that's been later called the Northern School of Shenxiu), and while in those texts Hongren (5th patriarch) is said to have taught from that scripture, we can see in the Platform Sutra - the text that eventually superseded all previous works of similar nature - that it's been switched to the Diamond Sutra. So, assuming any doctrinal or practical position of Chan from the Lankavatara Sutra is mistaken.

The sutras in currency among various factions of Zen mainly are: Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, Amitabha Sutra, Platform Sutra, Surangama Sutra, Complete Enlightenment Sutra, Vajrasamadhi Sutra


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 6:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
the fact is that buddhahood requires the elimination of the two obscurations. That does not happen in one lifetime, in general.

Astus wrote:
With seeing buddha-nature there is no place for any obscuration left.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
From the perspective of one in a state of equipoise, there is no progression.  From the perspective of one in a state of affliction, there is progression.

Astus wrote:
Such a distinction between equipoise and post-equipoise is not used in Chan. Rather, consider the third line from the http://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html: "Be off by a hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth." (毫釐有差天地懸隔) Dogen writes exactly the same in https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html: "And yet, if there is a hairsbreadth deviation, it is like the gap between heaven and earth." (然而毫釐有差天地懸隔) That is, you have either realised buddha-nature or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, what Huineng says is nothing special. The realization of a first stage bodhisattva is the same wisdom a Buddha fully realizes. The difference between an ārya bodhisattva and buddha is whether or not that realization is sustained 24/7/365. Bodhisattvas have equipoise and post-equiopoise phases, where they may still act out afflictively. Buddhas are only in equipoise.

What accounts for this is that veil of twin obscurations a bodhisattva must burn away with diligent practice, and of course, in every lifetime, bodhisattvas on the impure stages regress completely to the level of common persons, and need to begin again, albeit, advancing more rapidly. It is only when they reach the eighth bhumi that this regression ceases and they attain power over birth.

Astus wrote:
What you say is called in Zen "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice".

"As for “gradual cultivation,” although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no different from that of the buddhas, the beginningless proclivities of habit (vāsanā) are extremely difficult to remove suddenly. Therefore he must continue to cultivate while relying on this awakening so that this efficacy of gradual suffusion is perfected; he constantly nurtures the embryo of sanctity, and after a long, long time he becomes a sage. Hence it is called gradual cultivation."
(Moguja’s Secrets on Cultivating the Mind, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 2, p 216-217)

As for it being equal to the first bhumi, at least Sheng-yen agrees with that,

"At most, enlightenment in Chan Buddhism is something like attaining the "pure Dharma-eye" (S. dharmacaksu-visuddha; C. fayanjing) that is, seeing the path (jiandao), which corresponds to the first fruit [stream-entry] in Nikaya Buddhism."
(Sheng-yen: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p 102)

However, the Platform Sutra takes neither of those positions.

"The self-nature becomes enlightened itself, sudden enlightenment and sudden cultivation. There is no gradual progression. Therefore, one does not posit all the dharmas. The dharmas are quiescent—how could there be a progression?"
(Platform Sutra, ch 8, BDK Edition, p 75)

Neither does Mazu.

"Following the principle is awakening, and following phenomena is ignorance. Ignorance is to be ignorant of one's original mind. Awakening is to awake to one's original nature. Once awakened, one is awakened forever, there being no more ignorance. Like, when the sun comes, then all darkness disappears. When the sun of p~ajMem erges, it does not coexist with the darkness of the defilements."
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 67-68)

Dazhu.

"If one see his own Nature, he is no longer a worldly person. If one is suddenly enlightened about the Supreme Vehicle, he has transcended both the worldly and the holy stages. Only a deluded man talks about worldly and holy. The enlightened man transcends both samsara and nirvana. While the deluded man talks about action and basic principles, the enlightened man talks about the Great Function without limits. The deluded man seeks to obtain or attain something, while the enlightened man neither seeks, obtains nor attains anything whatsoever. The deluded man yearns for attainment in some distant kalpa in the future, while the enlightened man perceives the nature of all things suddenly and instantaneously."
( http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/tsung-ching-record )

Huangbo.

"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."
(Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 20)

Dogen.

"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."
( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html )

Or Menzan.

"Eihei Dogen went to China, practiced under Nyojo, and received the transmission of this jijuyu-zanmai. After he returned to Japan, he advocated this samadhi, calling it shinjin-datsuraku datsuraku-shinjin (dropping off body and mind, body and mind dropped off). This is another name for anuttarasamyaku-sambodhi (ultimate awareness)."
(Jijuyu-zanmai http://terebess.hu/zen/JijuyuZanmai.rtf )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Ignorance sustains them and prajñā eliminates them, but it is not the case that prajñā can eliminate all the traces sustained by ignorance in a single moment. This is why there are nine grades of affliction — from course-course to subtle-subtle— that need to be removed gradually, after one has realized emptiness on the path of seeing.

Astus wrote:
That is, in the role of wisdom eliminating ignorance there is no disagreement.

"You must realize that there is fundamentally no distinction between the buddha natures of the foolish and the wise—it is only because of delusion and enlightenment that [you think they are] different and that there are foolish and wise."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 28)

So this is where we get really into the Zen part then, i.e. sudden enlightenment. Because Huineng also says (p 30):

"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."
And (p 31): "To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
Also (p 33): "If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood."

And a clear description of what this Dharma is (p 33-34):

"in wisdom’s contemplation both interior and exterior are clearly penetrated, and one recognizes one’s own fundamental mind. If you recognize your fundamental mind, this is the fundamental emancipation. And if you attain emancipation, this is the samādhi of prajñā, this is nonthought. What is nonthought? If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations. 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. ... 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."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
As long as one has not eradicated latent afflictions [anusayas], one continues to take rebirth in samsara, even after realizing emptiness

Astus wrote:
What maintains and what eradicates latent afflictions?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
Ignorance.

Astus wrote:
How do you define ignorance?


