﻿Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
If that were the case, then we would achieve enlightenment every time we go unconscious.

Astus wrote:
What affliction is there in unconsciousness? Alas, consciousness arises again, that's why the path of asamjnikas are faulty.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, the difference between buddhas and sentient beings is the presence or absence of traces.

Astus wrote:
Traces depend on ignorance. Ignorance is removed by the knowledge of suchness, of emptiness. That's how when the aggregates are realised as insubstantial, there is no more basis for afflictions.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
That is not liberation, Astus, that is a realization. But liberation and realization are not the same thing, though the two are often confused. Liberation is freedom from affliction that causes rebirth in samsara. If one does not understand this, one has understood nothing of the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
When there is nothing seen to be attached to, how can affliction arise?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But I think it is because there is something of greater worth than the things people are inclined to treasure.

Astus wrote:
As nirvana is the denial of samsara, it makes everything in/as samsara worthless and meaningless, exactly because it is greater than everything people normally treasure.

Wayfarer said:
Is that something you would concur with? You did cite it, after all.

Astus wrote:
That article is quite clear.

"According to Buddhism, the reality of life is dependent originated. The only way to transcend the state of relativity and experience the state of absoluteness, is to understand, grasp and experience the nature of dependent-origination. ...  Conversely, if these self-attachments can be eradicated, the conditions to live will not arise. Then, we will be free from the cycle of live and death and attain the state of"

That is, life is fully dependent, and one should end the cycle of life completely, that is liberation. And that is what the article calls the ultimate significance of life, to fully and utterly end life.

Wayfarer said:
I quoted previously the passage in the Pali nikayas where the Buddha provides an account of what he is, and he explicitly says he is not a 'human being' (manussa)

Astus wrote:
It is not about what is a buddha and what is a sentient being. It is a given that there is a general difference between the two. However, that conventional concept is also an obstacle, so Danxia says that one should recognise that Shakyamuni was an ordinary fellow. This is the realisation of emptiness, or in other words, seeing buddha-nature. As for some scriptural references:

"The appearance of the realm of sentient beings is just like that of the realm of Buddhas."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html )

"Therefore, Śāriputra, not apart from the realm of sentient beings is the dharma body; not apart from the dharma body is the realm of sentient beings. The realm of sentient beings is in effect the dharma body; the dharma body is in effect the realm of sentient beings. Śāriputra, these two dharmas under different names have the same meaning."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html )

"Mañjuśrī, as the open sky is [pure, taint free, and attachment free], so too is bodhi. As bodhi is, so too are dharmas. As dharmas are, so too are all sentient beings. As all sentient beings are, so too are worlds. As worlds are, so too is nirvāṇa."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra46.html )

And what identity is this about?

"What is meant by understanding the true reality of a sentient being? It means achieving a clear understanding of the Mahāyāna."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra48a.html )

"All dharmas are empty like dreams.
Without self-essence, they are as pure as the open sky.
Dharmas have neither self nor no-self,
And I know that they are like illusions and lightning.

As a sentient being is born and dies,
No dharma can be captured.
The beginning, middle, and end have no self-essence,
Nor does a sentient being’s life.

However, a sentient being receives requitals according to its karmas
And endlessly transmigrates through life-paths.
If one trains to attain bodhi,
One will come to know that dharmas have no self-essence."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra48a.html )

Wayfarer said:
So again I think your interpretation is based on rationalising the human condition by not looking for any way out of it or anything beyond it. It's like you're taking the 'everyday mind' teaching and turning it upside down. It is more like reconciling yourself to the idea that life is basically meaningless.

Astus wrote:
There are the five aggregates and six sensory areas. The only difference between buddhas and beings is whether there is attachment to them or not. The aggregates and areas are no problem in themselves, grasping any of them as self is the mistake. However, there has never been any self anywhere to begin with, so selflessness is not a special state to gain.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
This life and world is overflowing in meaning! Our way is not nihilism. For one, the meaning of life is life, just as the meaning of drinking tea is to drink tea, savoring as well that the tea cup holds within it all the universe. We can come to see every instant, every gesture, every up or down, every smile or tear as just the same ... holding and embodying all the universe, each and all just Buddha in life.

Astus wrote:
You just made a very fine empty fist.
That is: a clever way to say that there is no meaning, as meaning/purpose is necessarily beyond the act/thing itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So the essay that this OP linked to in support, doesn't actually say 'life is meaningless'. In fact, it reaches the opposite conclusion!

Astus wrote:
What is that meaning? To attain liberation. Just as I have acknowledged there. What does liberation mean? To fully realise that there is nothing in samsara that is worth clinging to. Not only this life is without anything to rely on, but even the highest possible heavens are to be discarded. Also, on a personal level, not a single thought or feeling is one's real being, so all should be let go. That's how in life - in this series of experiences - there is nothing meaningful.

Wayfarer said:
Now I agree that Buddhism states that 'the world is without essence and substance'. That is straight-ahead teaching of emptiness. But 'without purpose and meaning' is another thing altogether.

Astus wrote:
What gives meaning to life is when there is something to hold on to and/or something to strive for. Karma makes life meaningful in the sense that no act remains without consequence. On the other hand, acts are conditioned, and both holding on and striving are the very causes of suffering. Without a substance there can be no meaning. Hence it is repeatedly taught in Zen that one should cease seeking and realise that Shakyamuni was an everyday person.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
There are hundreds and thousands of texts written about this, but at the end of the day, if you are churning out verbiage with no change in yourself, then, you are just a parrot.

Astus wrote:
Certainly, this is a well known teaching in Mahayana, and it is not any kind of novelty that is expressed by saying that the Buddha was an ordinary being. It is something one should realise for oneself.

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


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
You are a bundle of afflictions who continually blunders through samsara because your afflictions generate actions which result in your own suffering.

Astus wrote:
That's it! We look at ourselves and see only all sorts of mundane, vulgar, basic, coarse, and totally ordinary things. While at the same time we think the Buddha is completely the opposite. The path is to go from mundane to supramundane, from delusion to enlightenment. As for the paths, in Zen there are all sorts of ways to categorise teachings, but the ultimate one is always sudden enlightenment. Among other things it means realising that afflictions are bodhi, to quote a general Mahayana concept. It also means the insight into the dharmas being unborn.

The master said, “The afflictions are bodhi. They are nondual and not separate. 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]. Those of superior wisdom and Mahayana capabilities are completely different.”
Xie Jian said, “What is the Mahayana interpretation?”
The master said, “Ordinary people see brightness and ignorance as different, but the wise comprehend that they are nondual in their nature. The nondual nature is the true nature, and the true nature is present in the ordinary and stupid [common people] without decrease, and in the sages and wise ones without increase. 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 9, BDK Edition, p 80)

"If he perceives there to be generation [of the elements of reality] and moves toward [a state of ] extinction, he will fall into the way of the srvakas. If he does not perceive there to be generation but only perceives extinction, he will fall into the way of the solitary enlightened ones (pratyekabuddhas).
The dharmas were originally not generated, and neither are they now extinguished. Do not activate the two views, and neither detest nor enjoy [things]. All the myriad dharmas are only the One Mind, and after [one realizes this] they become the vehicle of the Buddhas."
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 24)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Simon E. said:
But you see, or perhaps it is all so familiar to you that you don't..that is exactly the kind of freemasoneque jargon I was talking about. I am not denying that it is meaningful to you. But it is completely meaningless to me. It's just noises.

Astus wrote:
Huangbo is still relatively easy to read, as most of the text is original 9th century, when Chan was still pretty close to general East Asian Mahayana. Although it can take a while to familiarise yourself with it. However, if you look at works a century or two later, like the Blue Cliff Record and Dogen, it is developed Chan and it is a lot harder to penetrate. So in that quote Huangbo is just alluding to the Diamond Sutra's passages about the Buddha being without characteristics.

E.g. in ch 5:

"All things that have characteristics are false and ephemeral. If you see all characteristics to be non-characteristics, then you see the Tathāgata."

And the stanza in ch 26:

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


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
Au contraire, the Buddha was quite different from us. He was completely free from all afflictions, and had knowledge of all modes of awakening. Can you say the same? If not, then you must admit you and the Buddha are different.

Astus wrote:
What am I and what is the Buddha? What is that freedom and knowledge you point out as differences? Dogen writes in Genjokoan (SBGZ, BDK Edition, vol 1, p 41): "Those who greatly realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded about realization are ordinary beings." That is, to see appearances as self is delusion, to see them just as they are is clarity. As the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says (ch 2, tr Muller): "when you know illusion, you will immediately be free ... Freedom from illusion is in itself enlightenment". To further clarify the point:

"If you conceive of the Buddha in terms of the characteristics of purity, brilliance, and liberation, and if you conceive of sentient beings in terms of the characteristics of impurity, darkness, and samsara—if your understanding is such as this, then you will never attain bodhi even after passing through eons [of religious practice] as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River. This is because you are attached to characteristics. There is only this One Mind and not the least bit of dharma that can be attained."
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 14)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Why Pureland?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aiming for Sukhavati is a great choice for any Mahayana practitioner. There is no other path that guarantees buddhahood in one lifetime for everyone. So, unless you make it to at least the first bhumi now, Pure Land is the way to go. And if you look at the many forms of practices in Chinese PL teachings, it has a great offer of all sorts of methods, in case recitation does not satiate your needs.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
How is anicca, anatta, and dukkha able to see, hear, sense, and know?

Astus wrote:
It is to realise that the six kinds of experiences are empty. That is the meaning of no-abiding and no-thought. What the original mind is is nothing other than the non-abiding mind, or simply no-mind. So, what one should recognise is that seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing are without anything to grasp. However, assuming an independent awareness, that is the belief in a soul.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: is Cheontae/Tendai Seon/Zen and Pureland is the same?
Content:
ShineeSeoul said:
still stressing upon differences, its not big deal, you can be in a chan school and recite Amitabha to reborn in Pureland, its all at the end depend on individual intention more

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. There is no such church as "Chan School", it is not a club one can be a member of, but a teaching and practice one either follows or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I have said before, I don't think that is an adequate depiction.

Astus wrote:
It is just the four noble truths that I have rephrased.

Wayfarer said:
Buddhism generally is not simply a matter of accepting the reality of ordinary life, but cutting off the root of suffering altogether, through understanding the factors that give rise to 're-birth' (whether in this moment or in 'future lives'.)

Astus wrote:
The root of suffering (and rebirth) is attachment to appearances mistaken for substantial objects. Once that mistake is removed then things are seen as they are, that is, empty. That's why in zazen the instruction is to let things come and go, as there is nothing to manipulate, and that is the buddhas' realisation, as it is.

Wayfarer said:
But as I said before, Zen like any school of Buddhism is soteriological, which isn't just 'accepting things as they are'. If that was all there was too it, there wouldn't be Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
There is the problem of suffering, of dissatisfaction. It is solved by seeing emptiness. How is that not good enough?

Wayfarer said:
Hence 'paravritti', which is a 'turning about' in the deepest seat of consciousness, which is surely a description for 'religious conversion'.

Astus wrote:
Such conversion is the end of defilements through the realisation of the twofold emptiness, and from that the four wisdoms and three bodies manifest.

"The conversion of support means that, when its counteragent arises, the other-dependent pattern forever alters its basic nature as the defiled aspect and forever realizes its purified aspect. This conversion of support has six varieties: ... 6) extensive conversion—the realization by bodhisattvas of the non-self of things, wherein by understanding the merits of quietude and insight, they both abandon and do not abandon [transmigration]."
(The Summary of the Great Vehicle, ch 9, BDK Edition, p 99-100)

I don't see how that is particularly different from what I have already said.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: is Cheontae/Tendai Seon/Zen and Pureland is the same?
Content:
ShineeSeoul said:
Zen still practice the recitation of Amitabha, they might do it for different reason but they still do it

Astus wrote:
The intention matters a lot, even more than the practice itself. If one aims at seeing the nature of mind in this life, that is Chan practice. If one aims at attaining birth in Sukhavati, that is Pure Land practice. And one can do both at the same time as well. But they are still not the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
Zen is a direct pointing at the nature of mind, which in my experience is much different.

Astus wrote:
And what is that direct pointing at the nature of mind? How is it any different from seeing that all are unstable, unsatisfactory, and impersonal?

From Huineng (Platform Sutra, BDK Edition):

"The wondrous natures of people of this world are empty, without a single dharma that can be perceived. The emptiness of the self-natures is also like this."

"To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."

"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."

"There is in the self-nature fundamentally not a single dharma that can be perceived."

From Mazu's sermons (tr Poceski):

"Whatever arises in the mind is called form; when one knows all forms to be empty, then birth is identical with no-birth. If one realizes this mind, then one can always wear one's robes and eat one's food. Nourishing the womb of sagehood, one spontaneously passes one's time: what else is there to do?"

"It is because of not knowing how to return to the source, that they follow names and seek forms, from which confusing emotions and falsehood arise, thereby creating various kinds of karma. When within a single thought one reflects and illuminates within, then everything is the Holy Mind."

"The mind can be spoken of [in terms of its two aspects]: birth and death, and suchness. The mind as suchness is like a clear mirror which can reflect images. The mirror symbolizes the mind; the images symbolize the dharmas. If the mind grasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes and conditions, which is the meaning of birth and death. If the mind does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness."

From Dazhu's treatise (tr Lok To):

"If you understand clearly that your mind does not abide anywhere at all, then you are clearly seeing your Original Mind, which is also referred to as "clearly seeing the nature of seeing." Just this Mind, that abides nowhere at all, is the Mind of Buddha and the Mind of liberation, the Mind of Bodhi and the Mind of the Uncreate. It is also referred to as realizing that the nature of form is void. Finally, it is what the sutra calls "Attaining the patient endurance of the Uncreate.""


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: is Cheontae/Tendai Seon/Zen and Pureland is the same?
Content:
ShineeSeoul said:
so why there is big deal between schools? and what sect you must follow?

Astus wrote:
Devotional practices of the laity and the monastic regulations are similar in East Asia, although Japan is somewhat different in its monastic set up. As for the differences between Tiantai, Chan, and Jingtu, there are a few actually. What should be clear, however, is that except for Japan, these are not really sects existing as distinct organisations, but rather areas of study. It's similar to how while all South Asian Buddhists are put under the category of Theravada, there are numerous groups that follow different methods and philosophies.

Tiantai has its own practices (e.g. samatha-vipasyana, four samadhis) and doctrines (e.g. three truths, 3000 worlds in a thought). It is a fairly comprehensive teaching of Mahayana that organises all into its own system. Those on this forum who specialise in it can certainly tell more, plus the differences between Tiantai in the various countries.

Chan in China is mostly a general term for Buddhism, and monasteries are usually called Chan temples, but this does not have any effect on what actually happens there. If we were to narrow it down to something actually related to Bodhidharma's traditions, Chan exists primarily as the practice of huatou and the occasional references to Chan stories. If you look at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/chanmed1.pdf 's and http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/chandew.pdf 's manuals, you'll see that they describe Tiantai and classic Indian methods, even though both are nominally Chan. But of course there are teachers who actually specialise in the teachings of the historical Chan School, but again, it is nothing exclusive.

Seon in Korea is heavily influenced by the teachings of Wonhyo, Jinul, and Hyujeong, who are in turn continue the type of Chan propagated by Zongmi, Yongming, and Dahui. It is a combination of Huayan/Hwa'eom theory with Chan/Seon huatou/hwadu practice. But besides that there are individual differences between what a specific teacher or group follows. For instance, Seungsan, founder of the Kwan Um Zen School, taught koan practice (Japanese style) instead of hwadu meditation, while Daehaeng, founder of the Hanmaum Seon Centre, did not teach either hwadu or koan practice.

Zen in Japan is another story. Today they differentiate three branches: Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku. Soto, at least its modern form, is focused on seated meditation as its central method, and doctrinally they concentrate on the works of their Japanese founder. Rinzai and Obaku are not really two schools. On one hand, they have a joint council as a unified representational body, on the other there are several independent monastic groups within Rinzai. They generally follow the methods propagated by Hakuin, i.e. koan practice, that is somewhat separate from the huatou/hwadu style. It is also important to note that in Japan most of the monastics (clergy) are non-celibate, unlike in other countries where they still follow that full Pratimoksha.

Pure Land in China and Korea is not a separate school but, as noted before, a type of practice. What generally unifies Pure Land followers everywhere is the intention to attain birth in Sukhavati, but since practically any Mahayana practitioner can have such a goal, it is not that simple to draw some clear lines. So we could say that those who focus on some kind of practice centred on Amitabha and wish such a birth are those who could be considered Pure Land followers. Japan again presents a unique situation where there are some schools - independent organisations - that explicitly focus on Amitabha and birth in Sukhavati in an exclusive way.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: in enlightenment we only loose?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
is there not a goal in Buddhism of loosing a self centered attitude?

Astus wrote:
How about gaining a selfless attitude?

tomschwarz said:
understood about a point farther along on the path, emptiness, no increase no decrease.  but to begin to embody that realization  we must loose quite a bit of fundemental ignorance. no?

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is lack of knowledge, so it is not actually something to lose. Rather, one needs to gain knowledge to, figuratively speaking, lose ignorance. And what knowledge is that? That there is neither increase nor decrease, no loss or gain.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
This is not to idolize the Buddha but simply to acknowledge the import of the teaching. It is a soteriological teaching (in the technical language of scholarship) that is, concerned with deliverance from the wheel of birth and death. It isn't simply about rationalising it.

Astus wrote:
Showing that the buddha is one's mind and not something far away is to eradicate the distance created by the elevated status of the goal. Another function of this kind of teaching is to point out that there is no special knowledge or experience that one should acquire through various methods, but simply to recognise what is already there. Actually that is how liberation is gained anyway.

Wayfarer said:
Do you think it's possible you're reading a kind of 20th Century existentialist/nihilist view into the Zen texts?

Astus wrote:
I tell you what I read, then you can decide what it is.

Dissatisfaction with life comes from aspiring for peace and happiness in experiences. Experiences are completely unstable and unreliable, therefore they provide neither peace nor happiness. When it is recognised that experiences are like that, there is no more any reason to be dissatisfied. There are many ways to realise that, and what Zen teaches is the direct path to reflect on one's present experiences right now.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
the Zen teaching situation is in part about creating a kind of context for encountering something.  So all kinds of outrageous and confusing things can happen:  the teacher charges in and kills a cat in front of everyone, for example.  What was THAT about?  I think the attempts to mobilize the literary figures of ancient Ch'an masters in the present are attempts to introduce someone to this kind of learning environment.  Whether it's effective or not is knowable only after the fact--if it worked on the intended audience.

Astus wrote:
If there is a mechanism to describe the way "wordy Zen" works, it is like jokes. It is meant to prompt a turn in one's thinking from grasping at concepts to a total release. Not the type of release of falling into nothingness, but one that comes from understanding, from wisdom. There is actually a technique for this called the huatou method, something that Dogen did not actually agree with by the way.

Literary styles aside, if you look at the practical side of Zen, it is very simple. The huatou method is a concession to serve as an entry point, just like Soto's focus on the sitting posture. As Hanshan wrote: "to even speak about practice is really like the last alternative". But the essence of Bodhidharma's message remains the same: see the nature of mind. Everything else are just temporary instructions, better not take them too seriously.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 6:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is pretty clear from these statements, that "Buddha is an ordinary guy" simple means that the conduct of the Buddha, an awakened person, was completely unfabricated. Jeez, you Zen guys make everything so damn complicated and wordy. Must be a Chinese cultural thing.

Astus wrote:
There is a teaching by Mazu Daoyi where he says that "ordinary mind is the way" (平常心是道), it is also referred to in case 19 in the Wumenguan. That ordinary mind could be called "unfabricated". In that sermon he quotes the Vimalakirti Sutra: "Neither the practice of ordinary people (非凡夫行), nor the practice of sages (非聖賢行), that is the Bodhisattva's practice." The term translated in Danxia's sermon for "ordinary fellow" (凡夫) is like in the quote, not in the saying of ordinary mind (平常心). That is, ordinary person (凡夫) means prthagjana. Still, Mazu and Danxia are in agreement, as Mazu explains his ordinary mind in a similar fashion (tr from M. Poceski: Sun-Face Buddha, p 65): "Just like now, whether walking, standing, sitting, or reclining, responding to situations and dealing with people as they come: everything is the Way. The Way is identical with the dharmadhatu."

As I have written here before, the point of stating that "Just recognize that Shakyamuni was an ordinary old fellow." is to know (識得) that he was no different from us. To quote the Vimalakirti Sutra (ch 7, BDK Edition, p 128): "On behalf of the self-conceited, the Buddha explained that emancipation is the transcendence of licentiousness, anger, and stupidity. If one is not self-conceited, the Buddha explains that licentiousness, anger, and stupidity are emancipation." In other words, there is no state of being unfabricated to be attained, it is to see that all fabrications are already the unfabricated.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
seeker242 said:
What's the point of saying he's ordinary?

Astus wrote:
To recognise that one is not a deficient being far from the perfection of buddhas. To see that buddhahood is about this life: one's present actions, words, and thoughts.

seeker242 said:
Can "ordinary" even exist without "fantastic"? Ordinary and fantastic are opposites are they not? How can thinking in opposites itself not be "floundering in duality"?

Astus wrote:
There is already a dual idea of ordinary and fantastic in one's mind. The point of showing that buddhahood is not in the category of fantastic is to clarify that realisation is seeing how things are now, not changing into something new. It is not about besmirching the Triple Jewel, dragging the sacred into the dust, but enlightening what holiness actually is in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I believe that there are so many people in this world who see the ordinary as merely "ordinary", nothing special, tedious, trying, sometimes amusing and often frustrating, sometimes beautiful and frequently very ugly, the source of Dukkha.

Astus wrote:
Such views are certainly problematic, the causes of problems actually. Exchanging it to another view, however, is not a solution, although "positive thinking" may prove helpful in some cases. Rather, it is seeing through every view as a view that brings about release from attachments.

jundo cohen said:
But it is hard for people to see what a wonder is the so-called "ordinary", how brass or gold is truly Gold, that breathing, an aching back or petting the cat is a more incredible feat than levitation.

Astus wrote:
Appreciation of everyday matters creates a good mood, and I do not doubt its beneficial effects. But it's not the same level as the teaching of the equality of beings and buddhas.

jundo cohen said:
If one merely describes "ordinary" as just "ordinary", perhaps the point is missed.

Astus wrote:
That is possible.

jundo cohen said:
Folks do not realize how special is this "nothing special", and how much can be attained by this "nothing to attain".

Astus wrote:
True, it can sound boring, therefore it is usually not recommended for those without motivation. On the other hand, why waste time with building up a nicer view if one can just get rid of one's present concepts? That is, after all, the direct method of Zen.

jundo cohen said:
There are many people who see shitting and pissing and changing light bulbs as shitting and pissing and changing light bulbs.
There are those who see Grand Shining Buddhas Exhibiting Major and Minor Marks as "Luminous"
But how easy to realize a broken light bulb and all "ordinary" functions as a Grand Shining Buddha's Major and Minor Marks?

Astus wrote:
First of all: great question!

While we might be on the same page on this matter as far as the meaning goes, it is about the way it is expressed that I can still raise an issue. My take is that there is no need to get anything grand and luminous put in the equations, rather just start from the broken bulb and point out how it is an essenceless conceptual creation. In other words, in order to drop body and mind, why first build up a magnificent buddha-body?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 5:50 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Because the ordinary is fantastic. Chopping wood, fetching water, scratching one's nose or taking a breath. Wondrous.

Astus wrote:
When you call it that, it reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN-8G0HCD5U. Still, what is your reason for talking that way? What does it mean to you? Because to me it's just unnecessary embellishment and possibly a source of confusion.

jundo cohen said:
But the same Linji also said ...

Astus wrote:
What you quote simply says that the real buddha is one's own mind. Not anything to be sought outside (or attained inside), nor something 'fantastic'.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Jeff H said:
I think the point is that within each ordinary being there is buddha-nature to be realized and Buddha is an ordinary being who realized buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
That is like the common tathagatagarbha doctrine, where buddha-nature is taught to raise hopes.

Linji says:

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

It basically comes down to this:

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

In other words, do not wait for mystical lights and special feelings, just look at your own mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: in enlightenment we only loose?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
is it true that in enlightenment we only loose and do not gain?  I think that the answer is yes.  and you?

Astus wrote:
What is there to lose or gain? Trying to get rid of something is as mistaken as trying to gain something. Rather, one should see that all experiences are impermanent: things arise, there is no loss; things pass away, there is no gain.

Śāriputra, foolish ordinary beings do not see the one dharma realm in accord with true reality. Because they do not see the one dharma realm in accord with true reality, they elicit the wrong views in their minds, saying that the realm of sentient beings increases or that the realm of sentient beings decreases.
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Often in Zen, the "ordinary" is most extra-ordinary and miraculous if properly perceived. The  fantastic and extra-ordinary is right at the heart of the most seemingly mundane, commonplace and ordinary.

Astus wrote:
The point of saying that Shakyamuni is an ordinary being is to remove dreamy ideas about the nature of reality. What's the point of calling ordinary fantastic?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Treasury of the True Dharma Eye
Content:
Iconoclast said:
I'm still on the fence about Dogen's work. I just don't want to buy a big, expensive volume if I'm not going to understand what I'm reading. My mind is thoroughly Westernized, scholastic even. All of my deeper reading has been of Reformed Scholastic theologians so I really struggle with Eastern cosmology and philosophy.

Astus wrote:
You don't need to buy a thing, you can read the Shobogenzo online in two different translations, although personally I have found the https://books.google.com/books?id=QTfqAwAAQBAJ version the best for general reading. You better start with his http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/common_html/zuimonki/ anyway. Then read a few introductory works, like https://books.google.com/books?id=tTs6AwAAQBAJ and https://books.google.com/books?id=dw0IdBImyRYC. Anyway, as I see it, Dogen is difficult to read, especially without prior knowledge of East Asian Buddhism, particularly of Song era Chan.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 9:40 PM
Title: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus wrote:
From Jingde Chuandeng Lu, vol 14 (T51n2076, p311, a4-17):

Zen master Danxia Tianran entered the hall and addressed the monks, saying,
“All of you here must take care of the temple and monastery. Things in this place were not made or named by you, and have they not been given as offerings? Formerly I studied with Shitou, and he taught me that I must personally protect these things. This is not to be discussed further.
Each of you here has a place to put your cushion and sit. Why do you suspect you need something else? Is Zen something you can explain? Is a buddha something you can become? I don’t want to hear a single word about Buddhism.
All of you, look and see! Skillful means and expedience, the unlimited mind of benevolence, compassion, joy, and detachment—these things aren’t received from someplace else. Not an inch of these things is evident. Skillful means is Manjushri Bodhisattva. Expedience is Samantabhadra Bodhisattva. Do you still want to go seeking after something? Don’t go using the Buddhist scriptures to look for emptiness!
These days Zen students are all in a tizzy, practicing Zen and asking about Tao. I don’t have any Dharma for you to practice here! And there isn’t any doctrine to be confirmed. Just eat and drink. Everyone can do that. Don’t harbor doubt. It’s the same everyplace!
Just recognize that Shakyamuni was an ordinary old fellow. You must see for yourself. Don’t spend your life trying to win some competitive trophy, blindly misleading other blind people, all of you marching right into hell, floundering in duality! I’ve nothing more to say. Take care!”
(tr. A. Ferguson: Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 129)

Alternative translation by Beishi Guohan:

Chan Master Danxia Tianran entered the hall and said,
“All of you here have to take good care of your own spiritual treasury, which is not attainable through labeling and describing by the effortful-effort of your deluded mind, and there is even no need to talk about attainment and non-attainment. ... You neither need to rely on the sutras and teachings, nor to fall into nothingness. These days Chan practitioners are all in a tizzy, investigating Chan and inquiring into the Way. Here in my place, there is no Way to be cultivated and no Dharma to be realized. Merely drink when you're thirsty and eat when you're hungry by way of clear awareness without self-referential deluded thinking. Just always act with this Mind in all places in your daily life to realize that Shakyamuni is the ordinary person.”


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: From a Buddhist point of view, how to live your life properly ?[Life choices in the light of impermanence and death]
Content:
Astus wrote:
... in the light of impermanence and death:

Karma is what defines both present and future, so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_effort is crucial. Beyond that, if you aim higher, for liberation, it is achievable through contemplation on impermanence and death, and by that realising that not even the best of heavens is worth aspiring for, much less anything below that.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: One continuous mistake
Content:
MalaBeads said:
I have never heard that before. That "one continuous mistake" is a misquote. Do you have the actual quote?

Astus wrote:
See this post by Koun Franz: http://nyoho.com/2013/04/01/here-i-am/.

The source (Eihei Koroku, vol 1, discourse 88, p 131-2):
Enlightenment Day Dharma Hall Discourse
The teacher Dogen said: Two thousand years later, we are the descendants [of Sakyamuni]. Two thousand years ago, he was our ancestral father. He is muddy and wet from following and chasing after the waves. It can be described like this, but also there is the principle of the way [that we must] make one mistake after another. What is this like? Whether Buddha is present or not present, I trust he is right under our feet. Face after face is Buddha’s face; fulfillment after fulfillment is Buddha’s fulfillment.
Here making mistakes is chasing after waves, and that means buddha-function. Then he clarifies that all functions, all appearances are the buddha's function.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
Most types of meditation are like any other skill, it takes time to learn. However, it should be recognised that while in the West the form of silent sitting is taken to be the practice of Buddhism, that is a biased interpretation. First of all, there are six paramitas, of those only one is related to that kind of silent sitting, and that's not even the most important of them.

Also, in East Asian Mahayana there are two widespread meditation techniques: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nianfo and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Tou. While you may use them in a seated position, that is not necessary at all. Other methods, like doing prostrations and reciting sutras are also popular. Tibetan Buddhism offers a large variety of ways of meditative practices as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: One continuous mistake
Content:
Temicco said:
Practice-enlightenment always struck me as the opposite of subitism -- is yours a common interpretation of Dogen?

Astus wrote:
It is a version of subitism. Zazen is not a practice to attain enlightenment, but enlightenment itself.

See this essay by Francis H. Cook: https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8591/2498


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: One continuous mistake
Content:
barndoor said:
Gregory Wonderwheel had a recent blog post about "Practice is Enlightenment" http://wonderwheels.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-misnomer-of-dogens-practice-is.html in which he argues that "Practice is Enlightenment" is a misunderstanding of 修證, pronounced in Japanese as shusho. He argues that Dogen was really asserting the identity of practice and its proof, or verification. I just wondered what anyone here with a knowledge of Dogen's original text makes of this.

Astus wrote:
"The literal meaning of sho (証) is “proof,” “evidence,” or as I usually translate it, “verification.” In terms of Buddhist practice, sho is usually thought of as the result of practice. The compound word shusho (修証), for example, is an abbreviation of mon shi shu sho (聞思修証). Mon (聞) is “to hear,” shi (思) is “to think,” shu (修) is “practice,” and sho (証) is “verification.” When we listen to a Dharma talk, we may think about its contents and try to understand them, for instance. If we consider the teachings meaningful, we adopt them as part of our practice, and as a result of our experience we may come to know directly that the teachings are true. So sho, the result of shu (practice), is proof or evidence acquired from direct experience that something is true."
(Shohaku Okumura: Realizing Genjokoan p 128-29)

The term 聞思修證 occurs as early as the Dasheng yi zhang (大乘義章, T44n1851) written by Huiyuan (慧遠, 523-592). In that treatise at one point (669a18) he splits 證 ("verification") to two parts: 報生識智 (karmic consciousness knowledge)  and 證智 (experiential knowledge), where of the two the latter is genuine insight. Later (0685c07) there's a definition for 修 as meditation (禪定) and for 證 it is abiding in the principle (住理). And while my interpretation of Huiyuan can be way off (as I have only searched for the exact term for this post), it seems quite clear that "verification" is equal to insight, the logical consequence of the first three.

An even more important place for 證 is the expression 證無生法忍 - realising/verifying the patience for unborn dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti). And that is a good example of enlightenment.

See also this essay by Rev. Seijun Ishii: http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms07.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: what is happiness for you?
Content:
Jeff H said:
Refuge in the Three Jewels means that there is a way for both conditions (the illusion of happiness and suffering) to dissolve into the bliss of perfect, universal harmony, and it is possible to make that happen. I think that is Buddha’s happiness, but it is nothing like ours.

Astus wrote:
I think setting up an otherworldly happiness is only extending the original pursuit of everlasting bliss and contentment. What Buddha clearly stated is that the cause of suffering is craving. And the most common reaction to that that I have heard was that giving up desire is completely negative, undesirable, and nihilistic. So, I consider it a skilful means in Buddhism that instead of proclaiming emptiness and extinction in a straightforward way, there is a currency of expressions like happiness, bliss, peace, and other nice words. The other objection I have regularly heard is that total contentment is unwanted, because then all the action is gone from life and there is no room for development, innovation, etc. left. That we need problems so we can solve them. Basically, we want to keep ourselves busy, either in a secular-materialistic way, or in a spiritual-religious way, or perhaps both. Then it is easy to find the idea that we need to practice a lot, we need to learn more, and so on, just to keep ourselves occupied with Buddhism, and consider that as virtuous. Certainly, excuses are plenty for that.

So, some may know of zazen as " http://www.tricycle.com/interview/good-nothing ", and still make it a goal. Others might have learnt mahamudra's " http://www.unfetteredmind.org/a-way-of-freedom/ ", and think that it needs to be realised. And there are other terms around, going back to apranihita, a synonym of nirvana. While samsara means constant occupation, chasing thoughts, feelings, and impressions, nirvana is the end of it all, no more chase. But that sounds totally boring, to simply stop doing things. Fortunately, a bodhisattva is eternally liberating beings out of immeasurable compassion. That is definitely a virtuous (therefore happy) existence. As for the part that a bodhisattva knows that there is nothing to attain, let's leave that as a theory or far away aim. What that tells me is not that we are all poor helplessly deluded beings far away from the buddhas. It tells me that we love to be busy, and it is practically unimaginable even for Buddhists to accept that life is not only empty (of both meaning and purpose) but also suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: One continuous mistake
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Dogen zen-ji described practice as one continuous mistake.

Astus wrote:
As Jundo has already pointed it out, that is a misquote. However, what he definitely stated is that practice is enlightenment (and enlightenment is practice). And that teaching of practice-enlightenment is a way to say sudden awakening. That is something that Zen teaches, although in various versions, depending on whom you ask. Also, it should be noted that Soto is not the only type of Zen out there.

MalaBeads said:
Another thing I have noticed (concerning the differences in the two traditions) in this: in zen I was taught that there are no symbols. This is important to understand I think: no symbols in zen.

Astus wrote:
It is chock full of symbols. Have you heard of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon, Zen's own origin myth? There are also Deshan's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisaku and Linji's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katsu_%28Zen%29. And how about http://www.sanbo-zen.org/hek019.pdf or http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/glg/glg38.htm?

MalaBeads said:
Another thing i have noticed over time is that many people do not understand at all either tradition. Especially, if they have not practiced it.

Astus wrote:
"Many people" do not understand anything.

MalaBeads said:
Saying that zen is, for instance, just staring at a wall, is, to put it mildly, ludicrous.

Astus wrote:
It is indeed just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma#Wall-gazing (biguan 壁觀), that's what http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=57. It means to be unattached (like a wall) and aware (gaze). The expression is quite symbolic.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: what is happiness for you?
Content:
Astus wrote:
A comparison of the mentioned Zen story with the one in the Theravada tradition: https://bhikkhublog.blogspot.com/2007/04/desire-reposted-tale-of-two-similes.html


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: what is happiness for you?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
the four immesurables, when taken in their absolute context are quite well-fitting as absolute truth.  don't forget that absolute love is one door-way to realizing the absolute truth.

Astus wrote:
They can lead to liberation, if realised to be impermanent, i.e. 'This awareness-release through good will is fabricated & intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation.' ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.052.than.html#brahma )

However, if only the immeasurables are practised, they are insufficient for liberation, as we can see from the story in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.097.than.html, where the Buddha says: "Monks, Sariputta — when there was still more to be done, having established Dhanañjanin the brahman in the inferior Brahma world — has gotten up from his seat and left."

tomschwarz said:
when you read over the definitions in the link you sent, e.g. equanimity, does that not help you to feel better?

Astus wrote:
There are many things one can feel better from. That is their allure. And once one clings to such sensations, one is trapped and becomes dissatisfied. That's where one needs to know the escape from that.

tomschwarz said:
and that definition there above, is a good door for something like entering the path of seeing,  no?    do you think that getting "stuck" on the path of seeing leads to a heavenly rebirth?  ...not a rhetorical question....

Astus wrote:
It does not lead to the path of seeing, it lacks the insight into the nature of experiences. It leads to a calm state that can be conducive to insight.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: what is happiness for you?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
and buddhism is quite clear that immeasurable happiness is found in 4 ways.  and those 4 immensurables are all absolute/ non-dual.  No?

Astus wrote:
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara are limited, relative and impermanent. Getting stuck on them leads to a heavenly birth.

tomschwarz said:
how do you characterize happiness?

Astus wrote:
This is a great answer:
seeker242 said:
Not wanting anything.

Astus wrote:
However, living itself is beset by desires and needs. The kind of "no want" (apranihita) that is possible is when the very dependency of all physical and mental events are clearly seen and one no longer believes there is something to aim for.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
DGA said:
I venture the hypothesis that there is an authoritarian tendency in all of Buddhadharma as it is realized in institutions such as temples and Dharma centers, made much more explicit in some areas than others.  Whether this is counterproductive or unavoidable or whatever else, I leave you to draw your own conclusions based on your experience and knowledge of the teachings.

Astus wrote:
It is human nature. Although there are some child-like people who want a parent-figure above them, most people are OK with some sort of commander simply out of lack of interest in taking charge and thinking for themselves in a given matter. So, it's more a matter of ignorance than attachment.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, they are dharmas, the four unconditioned dharmas.

Astus wrote:
There are other nominal dharmas as well, like speed (java), number (samkhya), and syllables (vyanjanakaya).

Also, according to the Cheng Weishi Lun (tr Wei Tat, p 81, 85, 87):

"The Unconditioned Non-Active Dharmas (asamskrtadharmas), apart from rupa-citta-caittas, are definitely not real entities as the Sarvastivadins and others say. We do not, by our reason, recognize such Asamskrtas as real entities.
...

Here are the two ways in which we should understand them.
1. The three Asamskrtas exist as fictitious constructions dependent on the evolution of consciousness.
...
2. The three Asamskrtas exist as fictitious constructions of the true nature of dharmas, dharmata, also called Bhutatathata.
...
All these five Asamskrtas, Akasa etc., are only fictitious constructions formulated on the basis of the significations of Bhutatathata. But Bhutatathata itself is also only a fictitious designation (like food, oil, worm, etc.).

...
We are not like the other schools according to which a real eternal dharma exists, apart from matter, mind, etc., which is called Bhutatathata.
Hence the Asamskrtas are not real entities."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So space, emptiness and the two cessations are not dharmas? Really?

Astus wrote:
As http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=326065#p326065: "All four denominate types of absences, and as such they are not different from common concepts like the blankness of a screen."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
All experiences of the five physical categories are nonconceptual, as you say, as thoughts are attributed to them subsequently. The difference is that by direct perception you seem to mean an interaction between subject and object, while I say that it is an appearance. However, even in the 18 elements scheme the perception happens only once contact is made and a sensory consciousness occurred, that is, an experience. So in the end there is no difference between the two.

Malcolm said:
Astus, now you are contradicting yourself:

Astus wrote:
...a form exists either as a concept produced by the bifurcation of experience to subject and object, or as a subsequent concept about the object.
No contradiction:

experiences of the five physical categories -> bifurcation of experience -> subsequent concept


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
1. Meaning that a Bodhisattva does not perceive any difference between their "self" and another. That they do not consider the suffering of an other being as seperate to them.  That they do not consider the joy an other being feels as seperate to them.  That they identify completely with other beings, since they realise the true nature of their own existence.

2. If a Bodhisattva (or a Buddha) was literally no different (or not differentiated) to other beings, then their merit store would be our merit store.  Their enlightenment would be our enlightenment.  But that is quite clearly not the case.

Astus wrote:
That two sections do not add up to me. First you say there is no difference for a bodhisattva, then you affirm a difference. Is it perhaps that to you no-self means a unity with everything, therefore while a bodhisattva personally knows of a unity but is not actually one with all beings?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Virgo said:
Whether you see them or not, those physical phenomena are still there.

Astus wrote:
If it is not experienced, it is not a phenomenon, as it does not occur to us. But of course we can assume that it exists nevertheless, however, that is just an assumption. And from that assumption we can build up the system where from the encounter of object and organ a consciousness is produced.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
How do you account for nonconceptual perception in your scheme? You can't. Since you can't, you are, prima facie, denying there is such as thing as a direct perception. Direct perceptions, for example, the direct perception of a blue vase, are nonconceptual by definition.

Astus wrote:
All experiences of the five physical categories are nonconceptual, as you say, as thoughts are attributed to them subsequently. The difference is that by direct perception you seem to mean an interaction between subject and object, while I say that it is an appearance. However, even in the 18 elements scheme the perception happens only once contact is made and a sensory consciousness occurred, that is, an experience. So in the end there is no difference between the two.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
This statement is figurative, not literal.

Astus wrote:
And what is its figurative meaning?

Here are a number of commentaries to chapter 3 (where it's stated: "If a bodhisattva abides in the signs of self, person, sentient being, or life-span, she or he is not a bodhisattva.") of the Diamond Sutra:

Te-ch’ing says, “The primary method taught by the Buddha to liberate beings is to realize that there is no self. Once there is a self, the other concepts follow. In liberating beings, a bodhisattva should realize that there is no self. Once there is no self, there are no beings. And if there are no beings, then all beings are naturally liberated. And once all beings are liberated, the fruit of buddhahood is not far off.”

Tzu-hsuan says, “Belief in a self is the most basic of all beliefs. All other perceptions arise from this. Once there is no perception of a self, there is no perception of other beings. When there is no perception of other beings, self and other beings become the same.”
 
Ting Fu-pao says, “The perception of a self refers to the mistaken apprehension of something that focuses within and controls the five skandhas of form, sensation, perception, volition, and cognition. The perception of a being refers to the mistaken apprehension that the combination of the skandhas creates a separate entity. The perception of a life refers to the mistaken belief that the self possesses a lifespan of a definite length. Finally, the perception of a soul refers to the mistaken apprehension of something that is reborn, either as a human or as one of the other forms of existence.”
(Red Pine: The Diamond Sutra, p 81-82)

"If a Bodhisattva crosses living beings over and yet attaches to a self who takes them across, the four marks are not yet empty, and the false heart is not yet subdued. Such a person turns his back on praj¤à and becomes involved in the four marks that unite to form a self. The mark of self is the root of all marks. If one can turn the illusion of self around, then he can take living beings across to nirvàõa. He can separate himself from the four marks, subdue his heart, and thereby become a true Bodhisattva."
(Hsuan Hua: The Diamond Sutra, p 90)

"A person has to get rid of the four notions of self, a person, a living being, and a life span in order to have the wisdom of nondiscrimination. 
“Self” refers to a permanent, changeless identity, but since, according to Buddhism, nothing is permanent and what we normally call a self is made entirely of nonself elements, there is really no such entity as a self. Our concept of self arises when we have concepts about things that are not self. Using the sword of conceptualization to cut reality into pieces, we call one part “I” and the rest “not I.”"
(Thich Nhat Hanh: The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion, p 45-46)

"Since a Bodhisattva does not see the mark of self nor the mark of others, when he/she takes across the others, he/she would not cling on to any form of existence. By real mark prajna, there is not a slightest notion of inequality: "Dharma is level and equal, with no high or no low". A true Bodhisattva has no mark of the self and thus can take across all living beings to extinction. That is how a Bodhisattva can subdue his/her heart by relinguishing the four marks. That is why the Buddha said that if a Bodhisattva has any of the marks, he/she is not a Bodhisattva."
( http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoor/archive/sutra_comm/diamond/diamond_05.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
A thing must be visible, a priori, in order to be seen.

Astus wrote:
Visibility is a quality attributed after it is seen to the concept of the object. That is, a form exists either as a concept produced by the bifurcation of experience to subject and object, or as a subsequent concept about the object.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But no, this is not the case, the five sense objects exist independently of the body as objects for the five senses, conventionally speaking.

Astus wrote:
There is no disagreement on the conventional concept of independent external objects.

Malcolm said:
But the form is not something that only exists when it is seen.

Astus wrote:
What makes a form form? That it is seen. What is it when not seen?

"What is the characteristic of the form element? The form element is that which becomes visible when it is seen by the eye, and over which is exercised the supremacy of the eye element. The characteristics of the elements of sound, odor, taste, tangibility and the mental object are like that of the form element."
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 4)

Let's take an apple as an example. We can agree that conventionally an apple does not come from any of the faculties, but it's grown on a tree whence it reaches our kitchen table in a complicated way, and during that time there is the apple travelling from there to here. Once we have that apple, it can be sensed by all five physical faculties. When we look at it, we see the form of the apple. Is that form what's come from the orchard to the kitchen? Is that form even the apple? The answer to both are now, because even by abhidharma terms the apple is conventional, and dharmas, like form, are momentary. So, it seems to me that form is only what and when it is seen.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
How can we have compassion (for example) is we ignore the validity of the the others experiences?  Wisdom is fine and dandy, but if you are missing compassion, then it becomes a very self-centred affair.  So the experiences of others are not "beside the point".

Astus wrote:
A bodhisattva should not have the concept of sentient beings anyway. Also, when seeing phenomena as they are - occurrences of experiences - there is neither self nor other. At the same time, it makes no difference in how everything is ordinarily experienced, as it's only meant to remove attachment to experiences, and not eliminate them altogether.

I assume you're familiar with Mahamudra teachings on co-emergent appearances (e.g. http://www.unfetteredmind.org/milarepas-song-to-lady-paldarboom/ ) and that appearances are the dharmakaya (e.g. Mahamudra and Related Instructions, p 41). And because you quote Milarepa in your signature:

"Do you know what appearances are like?
If you don’t know what appearances are like
Whatever appears is an appearance
Not realized, they are samsara
Realized, they are Dharmakaya
When appearances as Dharmakaya shine
There’s no other view to look for
There’s no other view to find"
(KTGR: http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/songs/milarepas-six-words-sum-it-all )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The five sense objects, one half of the material aggregate.

Astus wrote:
And those objects exist when they are sensed, that is, they exist in the continuum of experiences. So, while nominally they are external, it does not mean they are somewhere out there.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I can understand what you are saying, but just because I haven't encountered it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  You may have encountered it.

Astus wrote:
That is besides the point, because what I'm pointing to is that it is one's own experiences that requires investigation. As it's often repeated in Zen, don't look for buddha outside your mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So unless you hear it, a sound is not a sound? Unless you see it, a tree is not there?

Astus wrote:
Sound is what is heard. What is an unheard sound? What is seen are forms and colours, it is the interpretation of those impressions that make it a tree.

Malcolm said:
The five aggregates, 12 sense gates and 18 elements all include external and internal phenomena.

Astus wrote:
What is external in the five aggregates? Even the four elements are experiences of solidity, fluidity, heat, and movement. As for the elements of object-organ-consciousness, because experience exists only with consciousness, objects and organs are merely conceptual assumptions.

Malcolm said:
Dharmakāya can never be a conditioned chain of appearances. But I suggest you go and review the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra and the dialogue where it is explained how dharmin and dharmatā are neither the same nor different. You assertion that dharmakāya = dependent origination is not only wrong, but it also violates this principle.

Astus wrote:
Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2 (BDK Edition, p 18, 19):

Not identical
"it is not the case that at this very moment all the common worldlings have already gained insight into truth, are already capable of attaining the quiescent cessation of supreme skill, or have realized full, perfect awakening. Therefore the opinion that the descriptive marks of the truth of ultimate meaning are not different from the descriptive marks of conditioned states of being is not reasonable."

Not different
"It is precisely because they have been capable of liberation from these two obstacles that they have been able to attain the quiescent cessation of supreme skill and to realize full, perfect wisdom. Therefore, the opinion that the descriptive marks of the truth of ultimate meaning are entirely different from the descriptive marks of conditioned states of being is not reasonable."

As you say, equating dharmakaya with interdependence seems to contradict that, and also if I were to say that the two are different.

How do you define dharmakaya?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
By appearances do you (also) mean phenomena or are you saying that there are just appearances?

Astus wrote:
Phenomena, appearances, experiences, dharma - I use them interchangeably.

Phenomenon is simply a Greek word appearance. Also, "In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon." - hence experiences, perceptions.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So there is no sound which is not an experience? And what is thinking about that sound? Then "we have ideas?" etc.

Astus wrote:
Have you encountered any sound that you have not heard? I haven't. Thinking of a sound is another matter, and one can mentally listen to whole symphonies, but that's a function of imagination (can't think of a better word now).

Malcolm said:
Seriously? Are you drunk?

Astus wrote:
As far as I can tell, I was simply giving a description of a kind of epistemological phenomenology, i.e. appearances as experience, in line with the teaching that the scope of Buddhism is within the boundaries of the five aggregates and six sensory areas. But either I'm doing a really bad job at expressing myself, or you think in very different terms.

Malcolm said:
That chain of conditioned appearances is conventional, and depends on conventional dualities to function. To bring it back around — dharmakāya is unconditioned, and so it can never be a conditioned chain of appearances.

Astus wrote:
If you set up that separation, as unconditioned it does not have any function nor any relation, and that makes it as inert as space.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Does that mean (for example) that a sound is not a sound?

Astus wrote:
What do you mean? Why is a sound not a sound?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But according to you, there is nothing experiencing experiences. In this case then, experiences are impossible.

Astus wrote:
There is no need to establish such a duality. On the contrary, if there is a separate experiencer, there is no connection between subject and object.

Malcolm said:
So, there can't be any invisible conditions?

Astus wrote:
What's the point of theorising about that? While we can use such ideas (e.g. storehouse consciousness) as explanations,
I see, so for you one mind appears to another mind, unrelated?
An experience is already what is later conceptually separated to subject and object, viewer and viewed, but there is actually no need to establish various minds or even one mind. For example, there is a sound, that's an experience, an appearance. The sound is then followed by thoughts identifying the sound. Again, thoughts are experiences, caused by the sound. Then we have an idea of what kind of sound we heard, and further thoughts (feelings, intentions, etc.) come based on that idea. Like when the sound is identified as the doorbell and then we are happy because somebody we were expecting has arrived. That is a chain of conditioned appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is the "whatever" that is under scrutiny here. You claim experiences are the mind, and at the same time, deny they are the mind.

Astus wrote:
It all depends on what you mean by mind. Here I used it simply as another term for experiences in general.

Malcolm said:
In order for there to be dependently originated appearances, there must be conditions.

Astus wrote:
Conditions are between appearances, i.e. appearances are conditioned by appearances.

Malcolm said:
actually what you have said is that appearances are the experiences themselves. This can only be the case if the mind is its own appearances, appearing to itself, independently of any other cause or condition.

Astus wrote:
Again, what do you call mind? You seem to use it as if it were a single entity ("appearing to itself"), and that I do not do.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So there are phenomena existing outside of mind that are apprehended via the sense organs (given the existence of certain conditions like light, space, etc...) and then defined by the mind(s).  It's the classic abhidharma/abhidhamma approach.

Astus wrote:
Appearances are what is experienced. While we may assume external phenomena, it does not change that all we have are perceptions, but it splits (categorises) the experiences to internal (subjective) and external (objective).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
And we set them up from what cause? How does this setting up even happen? How can there be relations if there are no entities apart from the mind?

Astus wrote:
Whatever we perceive are what we experience. To imagine something behind/beyond what is experienced is only conjecture and irrelevant. At the same time, attributing independence to perceptions, separate existence from experience, is how substantiality is established and suffering ensues.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:



Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
In general, you have asserted that all objects are merely projections of the mind itself.

Astus wrote:
In the sense that it is through categorisation that we set up things and relations between them.

Malcolm said:
But there is no way these projections of the mind can be projected, there is also no basis for their impression.

Astus wrote:
I don't see your point here.


Malcolm said:
Since you have rejected subject and object even conventionally

Astus wrote:
I don't recall doing so. Just look back at the first quote in this post and my response to it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This does not solve anything, since you have effectively ruled out all causation for the mind, you are effectively left with an inherent causeless mind, which is also insentient since there is no objects which it can cognize.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how, unless you mean a cause for the mind-stream that is something else than mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
experiences supported on what? Are those experiences the same as or different than the subject experiencing them?

Astus wrote:
Experiences are streams of phenomena on what we project subject and object. It is like paratantra of the three svabhavas.

Malcolm said:
And what the three dharma that be construed of as experiences, or even as appearances, at all?, space and the two cessations; four if you add emptiness to the those three.

Astus wrote:
All four denominate types of absences, and as such they are not different from common concepts like the blankness of a screen.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I see, so you are proposing a nondependent consciousness then, since experiences are just mind, are indivisible from the mind, and are therefore, caused by the mind itself, without reference to any other cause or condition. You just argued yourself into the Vedanta corner.
Not even yogacara abandons external objects conventionally.

Astus wrote:
That would apply if I talked of a single mind. What I said, however, is that dependent appearances - all dharmas - occur as experiences.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So appearances are outside the mind?

Astus wrote:
No. There is just mind/experiences. From what did you conclude that?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
What is the difference between space and mind?
You are missing this point.

Astus wrote:
There is no space outside the mind, so I do not propose some inanimate thing. Appearances are experiences - i.e. the five aggregates (PP8000 12.2), the six sensory areas (SN 35.23). In other words, the emptiness-awareness of the mind is emptiness-interdependence, where awareness is consciousness of appearances (not an independent awareness without phenomena). Using basic terminology, no-self is that there is no self in the aggregates, it is a description of the aggregates, and not an entity called no-self.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Dharmakāya is a result of seeing the nature [dharmatā] of those things, it is the subject.

Astus wrote:
True, it is a term used for the nature of buddhas. Still, their nature is not different from the nature of appearances. How could they be separated, since beings themselves are appearances?

Malcolm said:
Further, the dharmakāya is defined as unconditioned

Astus wrote:
And appearances are unborn.

Malcolm said:
Now, on the other hand, dependent origination is clearly defined as conditioned

Astus wrote:
Being conditioned is how/why all is unconditioned. Because of emptiness can there be interdependence.

Malcolm said:
Thus, if you call dependent origination "dharmakāya," you are making a fundamental error in judgement which leads to dharmakāya being impermanent, etc.

Astus wrote:
It is simply a different wording of the concept of the non-differentiation between samsara and nirvana.

"Therefore, Śāriputra, not apart from the realm of sentient beings is the dharma body; not apart from the dharma body is the realm of sentient beings. The realm of sentient beings is in effect the dharma body; the dharma body is in effect the realm of sentient beings. Śāriputra, these two dharmas under different names have the same meaning."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html )

And here Dogen states it clearly:

"Therefore, that the grasses, trees, thickets and groves are impermanent is the buddha nature; that humans and things, body and mind are impermanent — this is because they are the buddha nature. That the lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent — this is the buddha nature. Annuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, because it is the buddha nature, is impermanent; the great parinirvāṇa, because it is impermanent, is the buddha nature."
( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You defined dharmakaya as dependent origination. This is a clear error.

Astus wrote:
Why is that? Is there perhaps an emptiness outside of appearances? Or is it some inherent knowing maybe that makes it independent? Please elaborate.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There is something to be attained, but something that can only be attained by non-attainment.

Astus wrote:
In a sense there is something (nirvana) to be attained, otherwise no point of a path.

Wayfarer said:
'First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is '....I think, all due respect, you're speaking from an exclusively 'no mountain' perspective.

Astus wrote:
I'm saying it's just a mountain in the first, the second, and the third time as well. The difference lies in that first one adds grasping, second time one adds not grasping, and the third time there is nothing added or taken away.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
Does that teaching correspond to anything outside the conceptual?  Does it describe a phenomenon?  If not, why would Buddha Shakyamuni mobilize this particular concept?  If so, then to what does it correspond?

Astus wrote:
The teaching is conceptual meant to address the misconception of taking experiences to be substantial. Beyond that, since there is no thing to depend on another thing, how could there be real interdependence?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What I mean is that interdependence is not a product of interdependence, so it is not the case of something arising of itself.

Sherab Dorje said:
So, if everything you say is true, then what is the cause and/or condition for interdependence, given that it is conditioned?

Astus wrote:
Interdependence is a teaching of the Buddha intended to liberate beings from ignorance.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
What are you saying now?  That oranges grow on apple trees?

Astus wrote:
What I mean is that interdependence is not a product of interdependence, so it is not the case of something arising of itself.

Sherab Dorje said:
Are we confounding the finger for the moon here?

Astus wrote:
Interdependence is a concept, as there is no such thing or even phenomenon that is interdependence itself, rather it is a description of how appearances are.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is merely one, and very incomplete definition. And here, it clearly refers to realization of the nature of things, not to the things themselves.

Astus wrote:
Please clarify what problem you see there.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
They are concerned with transformation, with entering a different realm or mode of being.  There is something remarkable and amazing in Buddhism, which you're consistently deprecating and rationalising away by saying it is 'just ordinary'.

Astus wrote:
I'm calling it ordinary not because it could not be called extraordinary, but because after raising faith and enthusiasm for practice it becomes misleading and generate false expectations. As it is stated by the Buddha of himself:

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

Therefore:

"you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized"
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html )

This is no different from Chan's no-mind:

"Having no-mind anywhere whatsoever means being free of love and hate. Being free of love and hate means that when you see good things, you do not allow a thought of love to arise, which is known as the "no-love" mind. Conversely, when you see evil things, you do not allow a thought of hate to arise, which is known as the "no-hate" mind. A mind that is void of love and hate is also known as a non-defiled mind, wherein the voidness of all forms is realized. This is also known as the termination of all conditions, and the termination of all conditions means attaining Liberation naturally and spontaneously."
( http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment )

Is there something extraordinary? Although calling it ordinary is not really appropriate either, but as I write above, it feels more skilful. Nevertheless, the difference before and after enlightenment can be recognised. As Zhuhong wrote: "The line in this self-narration to the effect that it’s just a matter of eating when hungry and sleeping when tired is a matter for after you have produced enlightenment." (Chan Whip Anthology, p 96)

And here is Shenhui's differentiation between coarse and subtle obscuration:

"What does self-deception mean? You, who have assembled at this place to-day, are craving for riches and the pleasures of intercourse with males and females; you are thinnking of gardens and houses. This is the coarse form of self-deception. To believe that it must be discarded is the fine form of self-deception. That you do not know.
What is the fine form of self-deception? When you hear speaking of bodhi you think you must have that bodhi; and so when you hear speaking of Nirvana, of irreality (sunyata), of purity, of samadhi, you think you must have that Nirvana, that irreality, that purity, that samadhi. These are all self-deceptions, these are fetters, heresies. With that in mind you cannot attain salvation. If (unaware of the fact that) you are saved, that you are guiltless from the very beginning without anything additional required - you think of (leaving the world and) abiding in Nirvana, this Nirvana becomes a fetter (binding you to life) in the same way purity, irrealit, samadhi, become fetters. Such thoughts impede your progress to bodhi."
(Sermon of Shenhui, tr Liebenthal, in Asia Major, New Series, III (1953), part II, pp. 144-145.)

Baizhang follows the same idea:

"The complete teaching discusses purity; the incomplete teaching discusses impurity. Explaining the defilement in impure things is to weed out the profane; explaining the defilement in pure things is to weed out the holy.
Before the nine-part teaching had been expounded, living beings had no eyes; it was necessary to depend on someone to refine them. If you are speaking to a deaf worldling, you should just teach him to leave home, maintain discipline, practice meditation and develop wisdom. You should not speak this way to a worldling beyond measure, someone like Vimalakirti or the great hero Fu."
(Sayings and Doings of Pai-Chang, p 29. tr. T. Cleary)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya is interdependence itself.

Sherab Dorje said:
In which case it cannot be dependently arising since (according to Nagarjuna) something cannot arise from itself as a cause.

Astus wrote:
Change does not come from change, it is merely a concept. Dharmakaya is the nature of buddhas, dharmadhatu is the nature of everything, and both are emptiness, and emptiness is dependent origination.

Based on statements made in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html we read this in the Shalistamba Sutra (tr N. Ross Reat, p 32):

"How, then, does one see conditioned arising? In this connection, it is said by the Lord: 'Whoever sees-this conditioned arising (which is), always and ever devoid of soul, truly undistorted, without soul, unborn, not become, not made, not compounded, unobstructed, inconceivable, glorious, fearless, ungraspable, inexhaustible and by nature never stilled, (he sees Dharma). And whoever sees Dharma (which is) also always and ever devoid of soul... and by nature never stilled, he sees the unsurpassable Dharma-body, the Buddha, by exertion based on right knowledge in clear understanding of the noble Dharma.''"

Thus we see that it goes back to the earliest texts. May also check "Pratityasamutpada and Dharmadhatu in Early Mahayana Buddhism" in https://books.google.hu/books?id=9a7qBgAAQBAJ, p 11-28. And there is also some East Asian teachings, in particular those of the Huayan school, where they discuss the dharmadhatu as total interdependence being the ultimate reality. As Sung-bae Park sums up: "In the final analysis, the patriarchal faith which affirms that "I am Buddha" is the realization of the dharmadhatu of dependent origination." (Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment, p 26)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Everything is dependent on causes and conditions.

Sherab Dorje said:
Well, actually, apparently the Dharmakaya is not.

Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya is interdependence itself.

"Whatever is the essence of the Tathagata,
That is the essence of the transmigrator.
The Tathagata has no essence.
The transmigrator has no essence."
(MMK 22.16, Ocean of Reasoning, p 451)

"Thoughts and dharmakaya are inseparable. We have this dualistic approach of seeing dharmakaya as pure and thoughts as impure, but we need to understand the inseparability of thoughts and dharmakaya."
( http://www.kagyumonlam.org/english/news/Report/Report_20130103.html )

"Some people misunderstand the teaching "thought is dharmakaya" to mean that when a thought arises, it is pacified or dissolved, and then we are left with dharmakaya. Others misunderstand it to mean that if we realize thought to be dharmakaya, it is dharmakaya. The word dharmakaya. however, is made up of dharma meaning "the truth" and kaya meaning "embodimenC:' Thus dharmakaya refers to the ultimate mind of the Buddha. These two ways of misunderstanding the teaching stem from not understanding that, from the very beginning, thought is nothing other than the ultimate reality of the Buddha's omniscient mind. Thought doesn't become dharmakaya at some later time, and it doesn't depend on whether or not we are aware that it is dharmakaya."
(Thrangu Rinpoche: Essentials of Mahamudra, p 158)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Everything conditioned is dependent on causes and conditions. Every object of perception is dependent on causes and conditions.

Astus wrote:
Perception is only a perception of something. They are mutually dependent. One has to realise both as empty. As Vasubandhu states:

"That indeed is the supramundane knowledge 
When one has no mind that knows, 
And no object for its support"
(Trimsika 29, tr Kochumuttom, p 259)

Every born being is dependent on causes and conditions.  Yet 'there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade…if there were not that…there would be no escape from the born, become, made…' (ud 8.3)

That unborn is nirvana. Nirvana is the extinction of craving, the absence of attachment, the emptiness of self. Similarly, all appearances are empty, without a substance, hence samsara is no different from nirvana. To assume a realm/thing/state beyond impermanent appearances as the world of true permanence is only further grasping and a cause of dissatisfaction.

Wayfarer said:
It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.

Astus wrote:
That one, just like the Heart Sutra, Nagarjuna, and many others, talk of the middle way, where you don't find any ultimate outside conventional, no buddhas outside sentient beings.

Dependent origination is emptiness
Phenomena are there but no substance
Experience goes on without abiding
Therefore
Conventional believes itself ultimate
Ultimate knows conventional as conventional


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Question about Genjokoan / Dogen classic Koan
Content:
MuggWortt said:
Does the following quote say something about - 1. Free will

Astus wrote:
No. Read this on http://sweepingzen.com/karma-free-will-and-determinism/.

MuggWortt said:
and also 2. Some kind of inherent responsive intelligence interacting with sentient beings as undivided universe?

Astus wrote:
No. Such a concept is repeatedly refuted by Dogen (and by Buddhists in general). He calls it the Srenika heresy. See his https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html and question 10 in http://wwzc.org/sites/default/files/Bendowa-book.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I get the feeling that you are misinterpreting the term "unconscious".  Regardless, when (during their death) they start to regain conscious awareness, then they are aware of their suffering.  But I tend to picture them as being like accomplished practitioners that focus on a blank/empty state of mind:  ie they have awareness of the environment but... when the causes and conditions that lead to their mental state wane, so does the state.

Astus wrote:
They are devoid of the mental aggregates. And the moment any idea comes up, they are not in that state any more. See here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/asannasatta.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The suffering of impermanence. Viparinama-dukkha.

Astus wrote:
That is used to express the dissatisfaction about losing something pleasurable. Unconscious beings cannot have any pleasure, nor can they be aware of any change, as QEII noted.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I am interested in philosophical ideas. This idea is that mind is intrinsically aware or knowing. Otherwise, knowing or awareness must be a result or a consequence - in which case it is not fundamental.

Astus wrote:
Everything is dependent on causes and conditions. That does not leave space for anything inherent. However, because of the way causality works, there is always a sort of continuity, that is, the consistency that from an apple seed comes and apple tree. In that fashion there is a mind-stream, thoughts causing thoughts.

Nevertheless, there is a place in Buddhism to talk of awareness/knowing as the nature of mind. It's important to see the term in a similar way that expressions like impermanence and emptiness are used. It does not signify an actual object or being, it is only a description, in this case of the aspect of phenomena that they are always experienced, i.e. whatever occurs one is necessarily aware of. In particular, it is meant to point to an impartial consciousness that is often compared to a mirror where everything comes and goes unhindered. The mistake people may make at this point is to interpret it as something independent, and thus conceive it as a self. In order to avoid that it is added that this knowing is empty - i.e. cannot be found as something, it is without form; at the same time it is not separate from appearances, it is not an independent witness. That way there is no contradiction with the teaching of interdependence.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't think that the problem of dualities is solved by multiplying dualities--- splitting the two truths, for example. I would further argue that allowing dualities to go unchecked in "everyday matters" simply reinforces habitual tendencies that lead to suffering.

Astus wrote:
You cannot avoid how language works. One can only clarify it for oneself that it is only a linguistic thing and does not mean anything beyond that. Since even such terms as "emptiness" can be understood as some sort of substance, or even the ultimate essence, why think that there is any chance of coming up with a better way of speaking?

Matt J said:
I would say a better question would shift from being to function. Instead of saying, where's the line between sentient and insentient, why not ask: which is more skillful from a Mahayana POV? Given that the evidence can be interpreted either way, and any definite tie breaker is unlikely to come along any time soon, is it more skillful to leave open the possibility that plants have sentience or not?

Astus wrote:
So you would go with the idea that the end justifies the means? Then I'd go with saying that it is a meaningless topic. It makes no difference what view one takes about sentient beings, because it's still just a view and grasping at it is only to generate more suffering. Even on a common level what matter are the cultivation of wholesome emotions and abandoning unwholesome feelings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
I think it cuts much deeper than that. You all are proposing a duality, but instead of creation/created, or subject/object, it is sentient/insentient. But simply looking at how other dualities are handled shows that proposing dualities are always going to be problematic.

Astus wrote:
Dualities are fine, everyday matters. And they should not be put aside just because there can be no substance to back them up. It is not the topic that requires the ultimate analysis that dissolves concepts. Nevertheless, we can keep in mind not to take things personally and imagine them to be anything more than fictitious ideas.

Matt J said:
There are also some basic metaphysical assumptions at play here, primarily that there are phenomenon apart from sentience, which also has some logical errors involved in it.

Astus wrote:
Can't avoid logical difficulties. But as Kant realised this centuries ago, there is a place for practical reason. In Buddhism that's where there is a talk of nominal beings and their karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But my approach to the 'nature of mind' is different, in that I say that mind is never 'an object of perception' - it is not 'out there' and can't be known as any kind of essence, substance, or in any objective sense. It is always the 'unknown knower, the unseen seer', which is a pre-Buddhist idea from the Upanisads.

Astus wrote:
That kind of inherent knowing is indeed the atman of the Vedanta. In Buddhism that is completely refuted, so it cannot really serve as a definition of sentience.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
If I've learned anything from Madhyamaka, it's that the notion of a line, border, or separation is based on a faulty concepts.

Astus wrote:
Certainly all seemingly real are nothing but concepts. That does not mean that the concepts themselves do not establish categories. Rather, it is because concepts operate in a way that there appear to be separate things is a sign of their illusoriness. That is, they do not function without isolating objects. In this way we can talk of humans, animals and plants as distinct groups. The question here seems to boil down to the size of the group contained in the category of sentient beings. But the cause of this problem is likely not a purely linguistic or philosophical one, but some personal inclinations toward other issues (e.g. vegetarianism).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Whatever, this is how Shariputta teaches it in the Majjihma Nikāya.

Astus wrote:
Couldn't find that in MN. However, both Visuddhimagga (16.35, p 511) and Abhidharmasamuccaya (p 66) connect it with neutral feelings and other samskaras (except the pleasant and the painful ones), and they cause suffering because of what I've said above. But, as you noted, this is a very minor issue in this topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The first two are based in sensations, the last is not.

Astus wrote:
That would make it a purely theoretical category. On the other hand, that "all fabrications/compounded are suffering", that is because they are impermanent and therefore do not provide stability, while at the same time one craves for something to rely on.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The suffering of being conditioned.

Astus wrote:
Even for that there should be some experience present. Unconsciousness means no experience whatsoever. Or it simply means the general attribute of appearances being unsatisfactory, but even then, for those without mind there are no appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
They get a temporary break from suffering, no?  The suffering they have is waiting around the corner.

Astus wrote:
Of course, like for every god enjoying themselves for a while. It's just that such mindless deities have even less sentience than plants.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Ayu said:
And Buddha himself claimed that he only taught a small amount of the knowledge he had.

Astus wrote:
And the reason for that was: "Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding." Then he continues: "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I think you could say that a "sentient being" is a being who experiences dukkha.

Astus wrote:
There is a heaven of unconscious gods (asamjnisattva). What sufferings do they have?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 4:25 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
I've been taught that samsara means the situation of being bound by one's afflictive patterns of karma to the cycle of endless rebirth. It's a problem of being bound to affliction, particularly ignorance of what one is (here we agree).
One answer to the question, "what's a sentient being?" may well be "a cluster of afflictions that can't get its act together on its own"

Astus wrote:
Afflictions are the results of ignorance, ignorance is clinging to self. So I think we are on the same page. However, if we classify something a sentient being based on its biological qualities, even buddhas are like that.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
In the end, the basic failure of these conversations derives from the traditionalist urge to argue from some perceived "authority." It's like arguing that Meru Cosmology should be accepted at face value.

Astus wrote:
I thought you liked to refer to the authority of the tantras, sutras, shastras and occasionally transmission in debates. Still, shouldn't this fall into the matter of neyartha and nitartha teachings? So it would require some integration into a general Buddhist framework.

Malcolm said:
Are planarians sentient beings? I think so. This then raises the question of how such consciousness that they posses individuates when a whole planarian is split into two or more viable segments. It seems that all creatures beyond the range of complexity of planarians lack this ability.

Astus wrote:
Government Minister Zhu asked Changsha [Jingcen], “When an earthworm is cut into two, I wonder which piece has the Buddha nature?”
Changsha said, “Don’t have deluded thoughts.”
The officer said, “What about when both pieces are moving?”
Changsha said, “That is only because the wind and fire has not yet dispersed.”
After further discussion, Changsha said, “Ignorant people call this [consciousness that is the root source of life and death] the original person.
(Eihei Koroku, p 300; extended version: T51n2076_p0274c22-p0275a02)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
This is an interesting point.  "It's all mechanical" is an adequate description of samsara--the whole thing persists because causes and effects and conditions keep clicking into each other and reproduce the whole mess over and over without an out.
when we talk about sentience, though, are we only talking about samsaric experience--that is, the experience of being bound & afflicted?

Astus wrote:
Samsara is the unsatisfying view that there is a real doer, a real subject. Nirvana is seeing that it's all interdependent. As the Diamond Sutra repeats over and over, to have the view of there being sentient beings is mistaken. It is like the http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/tree-on-the-mountain 's story of the empty boat, people get angry as long as they assume there is somebody causing the problem.

The categories of sentience and insentience are primarily relevant in the context of ethics, not meditation nor wisdom. So, it is a matter of conventional views and not deeper analysis. That's why this can become a problematic topic, as we want to pinpoint a vague concept. While at the same time it is quite simple: we consider something a sentient being when we attribute it with similar subjectivity that we ourselves possess, that is, feelings and thoughts.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
If we reduce Buddhanture to impermanence, or more broadly, emptiness, I think that is not accurate. For example, this completely ignores the Third Turning sutras, and simply promotes the Second Turning as supreme. Personally, I think that what Dogen is referring when he says all things are Buddhanature is the non-duality of subject and object.

Astus wrote:
What school advocates those ideas of turnings? East Asian schools have different categories for sutras, and at the same time the teaching of universal buddha-nature - therefore the related tathagatagarbha sutras as well - is generally accepted. Not to mention that the Samdhinirmocana Sutra's definitions of the ultimate teachings of the second and third turning are identical.

As I see it, Dogen's point is to have people realise the non-abiding mind, that's why he argued against the popular view that made buddha-nature into a soul. Neither subject, nor object: that is emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Therefore, the mere fact that plants are capable of metabolism implies directly that they are capable of cognition. Hence they are sentient.

Astus wrote:
OK, let's start there then, that plants are sentient beings. What brings a being to be born as a plant? Is that a separate type of birth, or should it be included among animals, considering that they could be taken as the dumbest form of existence? Why was that not recognised by the Buddha and his followers?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is a difference between the self-producing (autopoiesis) self-organization of living systems and static, other-produced (exopoietic) "self-organization" of inanimate things, like crystals. The latter only appear to be self-organizing, but are incapable of sustaining themselves.

Astus wrote:
That reminds me of the teaching on the four nutriments (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.011.nypo.html ). That is, all beings depend on food. Also, the Wikipedia article itself quotes instances of mechanical and other phenomena that could be called self-producing. So, I think that is not sufficient either as a defining factor of living.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
I think that problems ensue when the assumptions of a culture directly contradict the objectives of Buddhist practice when people who belong to that culture attempt to practice Buddhism.  I'm arguing that the assumption that this is a sentient being but that is not based on the taxonomy of life kingdoms (plant, animal, monera, protist...) is problematic in just this way.

Astus wrote:
Every culture directly contradicts the objectives of Buddhism, as they serve the continuation of samsara.

DGA said:
The question of why Chinese Buddhism but no other Buddhist tradition tends to emphasize a meatless diet is one that is beyond my scope.

Astus wrote:
Chuan Cheng in Ethical Treatment of Animals in Early Chinese Buddhism (p 98-99) gives three main reasons: The traditional custom of zhaijie (斋节 - "vegetarian feast") coinciding with Buddhist practices. The efforts of Emperor Wu of Liang to spread vegetarianism through laws and propagation. The popularisation of the Brahma Net Sutra.

DGA said:
But I did have a follow-up question for you.  If Buddha-nature interpenetrates and mutually subsumes all things, then how, ultimately, do trees, stones, and human beings differ?

Astus wrote:
All things are buddha-nature. It is not some kind of ubiquitous spirit. In fact, that is a misconception Dogen wanted to eliminate, so his works contain numerous statements on the matter. Like this one:

"In sum, there is buddha-mind as fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles, and all the buddhas of the three times experience this as “it cannot be grasped.” There are only fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles, which are the buddha-mind itself, and the buddhas experience this in the three times as “it cannot be grasped.” Furthermore there is the state of “it cannot be grasped” itself, existing as mountains, rivers, and the earth."
(Shin-fukatoku (latter), in SBGZ, vol 1, p 300; BDK Edition)

The moment we separate ultimate and conventional there is a lot to debate. But even then we can still go with the usual distinction between essence and function. That is, the essence of all things is buddha-nature, the difference lies in the function of how it appears, so there is a difference between sentient and insentient. However, the function itself is the buddha-nature as well, so it doesn't really matter. Still, you don't piss in the kitchen and eat from the toilet, for functional reasons.

To make a more general point, all things are conditioned. A stone is as much bound by causes as a bird. To be blunt, everything is fully determined by their interdependency. In a sense, it's all mechanical.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, computers merely mimic sentience, they are not self-organizing. Self-organization is the hallmark of all living systems and is the benchmark for sentience.

Astus wrote:
What counts as self-organising? Programs have organisation skills, they can even learn and reproduce.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Trees, plants, fungi and so in in general, breath, grow, excrete, defend themselves, communicate within their own communities and other communities, an using fungi as as a web for other plants to communicate, they respond to stimulus, learn, and so on.

Astus wrote:
Then we might consider computers are already or about to be sentient as well. And maybe a number of other phenomena too, like memes.

Malcolm said:
Stones, and rocks, etc. in general exhibit no living properties whatsoever.

Astus wrote:
Then perhaps from a more higher perspective, like volcanoes, a whole living planet, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
I'm not convinced that only animals (including homo sapiens) appear to be sentient.  I think fungi and (less convincingly) plants appear to be sentient, but do so from a physical substrate that is significantly different from that of the animal kingdom.

Astus wrote:
That is a question of measurement. As far as I'm aware, mushrooms to most people appear to be no different from plants. It is only some form of biological education that tells otherwise. Nevertheless, I speak only based on my own small cultural sphere.

DGA said:
Does Buddhism have anything to say about birth as a plant or fungus? I'm not sure, but I don't think the four categories of birth (from an egg, from a womb, from moisture, or from spontaneous transformation) disallow it.

Astus wrote:
It is not included as a realm one can be born in, it is not a question of categories of birth. However, if we were to add it, all plant life would need to receive a similar position to other realms of birth, with all the ethical issues involved in treating other sentient beings.

DGA said:
Where I disagree is in how the conventional definitions and categories of a particular society ("ours" whatever that means) are at cross-purposes with Buddhist practice and conduct.

Astus wrote:
I consider social issues a fairly secondary and external matter relative to the path. That's why I say that there needs not be problem with any culture.

You are probably aware of the East Asian idea of universal buddha-nature, where it is attributed to both sentient and insentient. However, and while it has (almost) nothing to do with the question here, it could be used in some constructive ways perhaps.

http://www.shastaabbey.org/pdf/bookDenk02.pdf, case 17 (Rahulata's story):

Ragorata was a man from Kapilavastu; the issue of the karmic cause from a past life arose in the following manner. Kanadaiba, after realizing enlightenment, was travelling about converting others when he arrived at Kapilavastu. In the city there resided a prosperous elder citizen named Bomma Jotoku (S. Brahmasuddhaguna, ‘He Who Is the Pure Virtue of Brahma’) in whose garden, one day, a tree had sprouted a large, ear-shaped mushroom with an exceedingly fine flavour; only he and his second son, Ragorata (S. Rahulata, ‘He Who Has Been Seized’) by name, picked and tasted it. From wherever they picked a piece, the mushroom would regrow; after they had picked it all, it sprouted anew; no others in the household were able to see it. Kanadaiba called on the family because of his awareness of the karmic cause of this mushroom from their past lives and, when the old man asked the reason for the mushroom’s appearance, Kanadaiba replied, “Long ago your family gave alms to a monk but the monk vainly consumed the alms from the faithful without having succeeded in opening his Enlightenment-seeking Eye and, because of this, he became a tree mushroom in his next life as recompense. Since only you and your son have given alms with untainted sincerity, only the two of you have succeeded in acquiring this mushroom; the rest of your family have not.”
...
Today’s story is not about sentient and non-sentient beings; do not separate things into inner karmic tendencies and outer karmic conditions. A monk in a previous life duly became a tree mushroom in a present life. Whilst a tree mushroom, he did not know that he had been a monk and, whilst a monk, he did not know that he had manifested as a myriad things so, even though you are now sentient and have a bit of awareness and comprehension of what you are doing and can distinguish somewhat between a pain and an itch, you have never been in any way different from a tree mushroom. The reason for this is that the tree’s not knowing you is, beyond doubt, dark ignorance, and your not knowing the tree mushroom is exactly the same thing; this is why people make distinctions between the sentient and the non-sentient as well as between outer karmic conditions and inner karmic tendencies. When you clarify what TRUE SELF is, what is there to call sentient, what is there to call non-sentient? IT is not past, present or future nor is IT the sense organs, their fields of perception or their types of perceptual consciousness and IT neither cuts itself off from these nor can IT be cut off from them. IT is neither self-made nor made by others. You will see by training thoroughly, probing deeply and dropping off body and mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
What happens when the subject-object distinction becomes less and less convincing?  I suspect that the sentient being / insentient matter distinction does too.

Astus wrote:
Sentience is defined by experience, a mental continuum, thus the six realms. Plants do not appear to be sentient, unlike animals and humans. And while externally we can generally only observe physical properties (with the flesh eye), the definition of sentience is not physical. Approaching from a scriptural perspective, because neither the Buddha nor others described birth as plants and such, they are insentient. There are other possible problems with rectifying the karma of a tree or a stone, as they seem to lack any intentional action, although that part may not be so different from some heavenly realms.

Moving the definition to another level, it can be safely said that Buddhism can conventionally accept categories set up by a given society, to a certain extent. But getting bogged down in biological definitions and endless moral issues are unwholesome distractions that only hinder the understanding of the Buddha's intention and the meaning of the path.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 22nd, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
The best way in ordinary language to describe such a state of total escape amid no escape is not by words like "rest" or "peacful" or "pleasant", because that ordinary human term does not even begin to scratch the surface. Until it is experienced, folks find it hard to imagine.

Astus wrote:
The escape (nissarana) from the dangers (adinava) of gratification (assada) is to see that there is always arising (samudaya) and passing away (atthangama). In other words, craving and attachment can have only an object regarded as substantial, thus making it a personal (self or related to the self) object. Once the concept of substance is no more, the rest of the chain collapses as well. Hence the instruction to see appearances as illusions and dreams.

Saying that there is a Rest beyond rest and unrest, a Stillness beyond stillness and motion, a Silence beyond quiet and noise, etc., such language suggests a third option beyond ordinary things. However, that is no less misleading than using words without capitalising them. Liberation is the cessation of clinging, not an added dimension or special experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Astus seems unwittingly to focus on a few quotes removed from surrounding context to offer his "nothing to obtain" and "just eat, just sleep, just piss." In doing so, he unwittingly overlooks the pages and pages of other quotes by the same teachers, in the same cited works, speaking of how subtle, wondrous and miraculous this "nothing to obtain" and "just eat" truly is.

Astus wrote:
What is it they call wondrous and miraculous? That there is nothing to obtain and one should be ordinary. It is exactly to remove the dreams about supernatural worlds and powers that are beyond us. True, there is a poetic way to talk about the Dharma, to say that it is full of wonders and miracles. However, those are just "Empty fists and yellow leaves used to fool a child!" But actually "Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘There’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma." (Record of Linji, p 17, tr Sasaki)

jundo cohen said:
the phrase from the Diamond Sutra ... Passages point to the attaining which cannot be attained, the sublime which transcends small human notions of sublimity

Astus wrote:
All it says is that emptiness is the ultimate. Calling it the ultimate sounds nice, but does not mean there is something else besides emptiness. It exactly says that there is only emptiness. And because even the ultimate is empty, there is nowhere to abide and nothing to gain.

jundo cohen said:
you quote the Lankavatara Sutra ... immediately next words uttered by the Buddha ... like gold, silver and pearl

Astus wrote:
And the sutra reads: "been here all the time, like gold, silver, or pearl preserved in the mine". It is already there, not something new to be obtained. That is the very meaning of buddha-nature, of tathagatagarbha.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The whole point of the practice is to give rise to compassion- bodhicitta and to a sense of interconnectedness to all beings. The delusion to be overcome is the 'illusion of otherness'. But overcoming this 'delusion' is overcoming egoic life altogether.

Astus wrote:
All appearances are dependently originated, no disagreement here. It means that everything is bound by causes and conditions, from the minutest impulses to the movements of stars. That is, there is no real agent (doer, thinker), only conditioned processes. Seeing that is liberation.

Wayfarer said:
Why, in the Wheel of Life, is the Buddha depicted outside the wheel of samsara? The answer is: because the Buddha is outside the wheel of samsara.

Astus wrote:
"when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html )

"All things that have characteristics are false and ephemeral. If you see all characteristics to be non-characteristics, then you see the Tathāgata."
(Diamond Sutra, ch 5, tr Muller)

"Those who are free from all notions are called buddhas."
(Diamond Sutra, ch 14, tr Muller)

"The Thus-come One has no place from whence he comes, and no place to go. Therefore he is called ‘Thus-come.’"
(Diamond Sutra, ch 29, tr Muller)

Wayfarer said:
The Deathless is the goal and consummation.

Astus wrote:
What is without death is without birth. Selflessness has never born and will never die. So it is with emptiness, suchness, dependent origination, unattainability, inconceivability, etc. All dharmas are unborn, so all dharmas are the deathless. That's how there is no difference between samsara and nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
It is completely about exchanging something wrong to something good. It is about the transformation from puthajjana to bodhisattva.

Astus wrote:
"Nothing real is meant by the word ‘Bodhisattva.’ Because a Bodhisattva trains oneself in non-attachment to all dharmas."
(PP8000, 1.3, tr Conze)

"The scripture also says that all ordinary beings are Thus, and all sages and saints are also Thus. "All ordinary beings", refers to us; "all sages and saints" refers to the Buddhas. Although their names and appearances differ, the objective nature of true thusness in their bodies is the same. Being unborn and undying, it is called Thus. That is how we know the inherent mind is fundamentally unborn and undying."
(Daman Hongren: Treatise on the Supreme Vehicle, tr Cleary)

Wayfarer said:
What is 'normal functioning'?

Astus wrote:
It is the ordinary mind, the buddha-nature.

Wayfarer said:
I think here youre making Buddhism into a means of adjustment, a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the vicissitudes of life.

Astus wrote:
Samsara is the vicissitudes of life. The Dharma is the solution.

Wayfarer said:
But you're missing the vital point, the spiritual purpose of Buddhism, which is awakening to an identity beyond the wheel of life and death.

Astus wrote:
"As I see it, there isn't so much to do. Just be ordinary—put on your clothes, eat your food, and pass the time doing nothing. You who come here from here and there all have a mind to seek buddha, to seek dharma, to seek emancipation, to seek escape from the three realms. Foolish fellows! When you've left the three realms where would you go?"
(Record of Linji, p 22-23, tr Sasaki)

Wayfarer said:
Nirvāṇa is something indescribably good, greater than anything the mortal mind can imagine.

Astus wrote:
What is nirvana? The extinction of craving, the end of attachment. If there is also some wonderful experience involved, why wouldn't that be as impermanent as all other experiences?

Wayfarer said:
The texts you quote carry a double meaning, but you're reading them literally. When such verses say there's 'nothing to attain', that is meant to undermine the 'grasping mind' which is seeking for advantages and gain. It is the same idea as behind 'Cutting through Spiritual Materialism'. It doesn't literally mean 'everything is OK just as it is, go about your business'.

Astus wrote:
Yes, they are meant to undermine grasping. They are especially meant to show that the world is without any essence, any substance, any purpose, any meaning. That is, there is nothing that could be grasped in the first place, and all attachments are based on deluded ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Given the historical development of Zen I am not sure how you could take Hua-yen and Tiantai out of the mix.

From my readings of Zongmi, Chinul, and especially the more contemporary Sheng Yen all held that  awakening "is instantaneous, now, not a matter of time." No stages of awakening although it may be useful to conventionally  (and conventionally only) speak of "stages" in cultivation as in the 10 Ox Herding pictures.

Astus wrote:
The point I hastily referred to was that they matched Chan ideas with those of other schools. Regarding Shengyan, see "Orthodox Chinese Buddhism", p 100-103. There he explains enlightenment using the Tiantai concept of the six identities.

Sudden enlightenment in the Platform Sutra is seeing the nature of mind once and attaining buddhahood. This has actually made it into a Zen slogan (見性成佛 - see nature, become buddha). There were others who followed this view in the Chan school, and there were those who taught otherwise. Nevertheless, the Platform Sutra is one of the central sources of authentic Chan, and has been for a long time now.

Some quotes from the Platform Sutra (BDK Edition):

"bodhi is fundamentally pure in its self-nature. You must simply use this mind [that you already have], and you will achieve buddhahood directly and completely."
(p 17)

"To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
(p 31)

"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."
...
If you recognize your own mind and see the nature, you will definitely accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood.
(p 32)

"If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood."
(p 33)

"To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(p 34)

"Eradicating the true and eradicating the false, one sees the buddha-nature. This is to accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood upon hearing these words."
(p 49)

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

"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?"
(p 75)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
" nothing to attain " means that there is nothing to attain, that " no word is spoken " means that nothing wonderful is said, or that " You have only to be ordinary, with nothing to do—defecating, urinating, wearing clothes, eating food, and lying down when tired " means that the secret of Zen is to put on pants, crap and take a nap. In that case, I believe that, when building the old monasteries, they would have gone no further than the beds and privies.

Astus wrote:
Where Huangbo says in my previous post that "there is really nothing to obtain" is 實無一法可得, and literally translates to "really there is not a single dharma that can be attained". It rhymes with the DIamond Sutra's tenth chapter - the same chapter that contains the line that awakened Huineng - where it says "in the Dharma there is really nothing attained" (於法實無所得). And there is chapter 22 that says it clearly (tr Muller): "I have not attained the slightest thing. This is why it is called peerless perfect enlightenment." The concept of unattainability (不可得/anupalabdha or 無所得/apraptitva) is nothing new, can be found in the http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartv12.htm and numerous others. It is practically another term for emptiness.

In simple terms, in the six types of experiences (sights, sounds, etc.) there is nothing that can be held on to. Generally speaking, all come and go according to conditions. And if we care to consider it further, there is no thing that can be pinpointed as arising and perishing, much less can we find conditions. What is then left to cling to? Thus one abides nowhere.

To further explain:

"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. The only thing trainees should fear is having a single thought that [such things] exist, which is to be alienated from enlightenment (the Way). For each successive moment of thought to be without characteristics, for each successive moment of thought to be unconditioned—this is Buddha.
Trainees who wish to achieve Buddhahood [should understand that] it is completely useless to study any of the Buddhist teachings— just study nonseeking and nonattachment. Nonseeking is for the mind (i.e., moments of thought) not to be generated, and nonattachment is for the mind not to be extinguished. Neither generating nor extinguishing—this is Buddhahood. The eightyfour thousand teachings are directed at the eighty-four thousand afflictions and are only ways to convert and entice [sentient beings into true religious practice]. Fundamentally all the teachings are nonexistent; transcendence is the Dharma, and those who understand transcendence are Buddhas. By simply transcending all the afflictions, there is no dharma that can be attained."
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, p 20, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Matt J said:
Tell that to Zongmi, Chinul, and Sheng Yen for starters.

Astus wrote:
Zongmi and Jinul mixed Chan with Huayan, Shengyan with Tiantai.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
"For the Chan school, understanding ... is instantaneous, now, not a matter of time!"
(Record of Linji, p 13, tr Sasaki)

To put back stages into Chan is turning it into general Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As others have pointed out, Zen produces a lot of literature for 'a teaching which is no teaching'.

Astus wrote:
It's not just a Zen idea, as you can see from the referenced sutras as well.

Wayfarer said:
It is possible to read Zen as being about nothing at all, and I think you do that. But Zen is concerned with enlightenment, bodhi, liberation, Nirvāṇa. It is not simply 'nothing' or 'just being ordinary'.

Astus wrote:
We are bound by ideas of gain and loss. The Buddha teaches the way out of that. It would not be an escape if it were something to attain or get rid of. Hence it is seeing things for what they are: nothing more, nothing less. That is the insight into the nature of mind. The mind that is buddha. Even the third noble truth says that liberation is the end of craving, it is not about exchanging something wrong to something good. We may say that one attains health, but it is just returning to normal functioning. All appearances are already empty, there is nothing that can make them empty. The error is to assume that one needs to find something.

Enlightenment:

"Remember, there is really nothing to obtain, for the Bodhimandala is without any view whatsoever.  To the enlightened ones, the Dharma is voidness and nothingness."
(Huangbo, Wan Ling record, tr Lok To)

Bodhi:

"Question: "How is it possible to develop the Supreme-Enlightenment Mind?"  The master said: "Bodhi means nothing to attain.  Even now, just as you allow a thought to arise, you get nothing.  Thus, realizing that there is absolutely nothing to attain is the Bodhi Mind.  The realization that there is nowhere to abide and nothing to attain is the Bodhi."
(Huangbo, Wan Ling record, tr Lok To)

Liberation:

"If anyone has a thought of attaining something, that is a false thought; he is then bound by grasping thought, which cannot possibly be called Liberation. One who truly realizes this stage understands clearly in himself that he cannot grasp this attainment nor even hold a thought of having attained something. This is true self-mastery and Real Liberation. Finally, if one allows the thought of vigorous perseverance toward attainment to arise, that is false, not real, vigorous perseverance. However, if one does not allow a false thought to arise regarding vigorous perseverance, then that is real, boundless perseverance."
(Dazhu Huihai: Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment, tr Lok To)

Nirvana:

"They are just empty names, and these names are also empty. All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That’s all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood, and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations!"
(Record of Linji, p 19, tr Sasaki)

+1 Buddha:

"there is no buddha to be obtained. Even the doctrines [including those] of the Three Vehicles, the five natures, and complete and immediate enlightenment—all these are but provisional medicines for the treatment of symptoms. In no sense do any real dharmas exist. Even if they were to exist, they would all be nothing but imitations, publicly displayed proclamations, arrangements of letters stated that way just for the time being."
(Record of Linji, p 31, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So, why any teaching? Why is there anything called 'Buddhism' whatever? Why don't we all just carry on, doing what we generally do?

Astus wrote:
It is the teaching that there is no teaching.

Master Yunmen related [the legend according to which] the Buddha, immediately after his birth, pointed with one hand to heaven and with the other to earth, walked a circle in seven steps, looked at the four quarters, and said, “Above heaven and under heaven, I alone am the Honored One .”
The Master said, “Had I witnessed this at the time, I would have knocked him dead with one stroke and fed him to the dogs in order to bring about peace on earth!”
(Record of Yunmen, p 194, tr App)

Why is that? Gold in the eye.

"All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles’ twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The Buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, p 19, tr Sasaki)

So it is stated in the sutras:

"what has been realised by myself and other Tathagatas is this reality, the eternally-abiding reality (sthitita), the self-regulating reality (niyamata), the suchness of things (tathata), the realness of things (bhutata), the truth itself (satyata). For this reason, Mahamati, it is stated by me that from the night of the Tathagata's Enlightenment till the night of his entrance into Nirvana, he has not in the meantime uttered, nor ever will utter, one word."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.LXI, tr Suzuki)

"there is no determinable phenomenon called peerless perfect enlightenment. And there is also no set teaching that can be delivered by the Tathāgata."
(Diamond Sutra, ch 7, tr Muller)

"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed 
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.
Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
 — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — 
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html )

Thus we see there is no teaching and no attainment. Then is there anything special to do? Pang Yun does not write about turning chopping wood and carrying water into anything miraculous, rather there is no mystical phenomenon to be found beyond such ordinary, tedious activities.

"as to buddhadharma, no effort is necessary. You have only to be ordinary, with nothing to do—defecating, urinating, wearing clothes, eating food, and lying down when tired."
(Record of Linji, p 12, tr Sasaki)

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

Zhaozhou said, “Buddha is affliction. Affliction is Buddha.”
A monk said, “I don’t understand whose house is afflicted by Buddha.”
Zhaozhou said, “All people are afflicted by Buddha.”
The monk asked, “How can affliction be avoided?”
Zhaozhou said, “Why avoid it?”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 155-156)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But surely the ordinary man doesn't realise 'the extraordinary in the ordinary'? I am very much centred in the 'ordinary mind' teaching but an essential corollary of that is that 'the ordinary is extraordinary', which is something we don't realize.  But if there were nothing whatever to realize, then why, as the koan has it, did Bodhidharma come from the West?

Astus wrote:
All we have is the ordinary. That we want something extraordinary is what blinds us and makes us look for it without success. So, in a sense, it is extraordinary to realise that there is nothing to search for, nothing to realise.

Someone asked, “What was the purpose of the [Patriarch’s] coming from the West?”
The master said, “If he had had a purpose he couldn’t have saved even himself.”
Someone asked, “Since he had no purpose, how did the Second Patriarch obtain the dharma?”
The master said, “‘To obtain’ is to not obtain.”
Someone asked, “If it is ‘to not obtain,’ what is the meaning of ‘to not obtain’?”
The master said, “It is because you cannot stop your mind which runs on seeking everywhere that a patriarch said, ‘Bah, superior men! Searching for your heads with your heads!’ When at these words you turn your own light in upon yourselves and never seek elsewhere, then you’ll know that your body and mind are not different from those of the patriarch-buddhas and on the instant have nothing to do—this is called ‘obtaining the dharma.’
(Record of Linji, p 28, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
The reason that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is so strange to read is not because of the unfamiliarity of individual words and sentences (most of which, iindividually, are quite short and simple), but because of the radical concepts (and non-conceptual concepts )  being depicted which defy ordinary language and grammar. So it is with so many teachings of the Mahayana, especially through a Zen lens.

Astus wrote:
Just like any other work, the MMK is bound by its own context. The topics discussed is not difficult to read because of language and grammar - especially when we read translations - but the concepts involved. And that is what you seem to agree with. The concepts discussed do not defy language and grammar, they are simply foreign concepts. And the way they are discussed are also foreign. So it takes some learning to familiarise oneself with the relevant Buddhist teachings and that way learn ideas, like the the four conditions brought up in the first chapter. Eventually one can get a clear picture what the text is about, simply by going through a studying process no different from what one is already familiar with from one's school years. However, MMK is usually not the first Buddhist teaching one learns.

jundo cohen said:
Rather, it is that there is still a need today, as much as in Nargarjuna's time, to express what can barely be expressed, and certainly not with ordinary subject-predicate, past present or future tense grammar.

Astus wrote:
Nagarjuna, or Madhyamaka in general, is not a linguistic challenge but a philosophical. Also, it does not try to express some ultimate reality, rather it points out the problems with substantialist views. In turn, the insubstantiality of dependent origination is the ultimate view.

jundo cohen said:
Yes, my language is strange sometimes, and also inelegant (I am not a gifted writer), but neither do I repeat those old cliches;

Astus wrote:
What matters, to both of us I presume, is to be able to communicate. If what you intend to express requires a number of strange expressions, it is perfect as long as it delivers the required effect. My point about the artificially convoluted style many can take up mostly out of the habit of repeating the words, not only in Zen, likely happens either because of carelessness or lack of understanding. On the other hand, every group of people develop their own linguistic style, so there is nothing to do about some unique terminology. But that is far from avoiding the traps of communication.

jundo cohen said:
You do not hear me yelling KATZ! or MU! or giving blows or telling folks "The Cypress Tree in the Garden". That is just regurgitating the words of others.

Astus wrote:
Some could say you are neglecting the family style.

jundo cohen said:
I think it should be fresh, heart felt and relevant to the modern. But neither can you express these things in simple A is B sentence structure, because you are ultimately leaving so much out.

Astus wrote:
Expressing in simple sentences should be perfectly sufficient. Beyond that it is not different from plunging into sophistry. Especially from the Zen perspective where direct pointing is valued over gradual training. But if immediacy fails, one should follow the step by step method of the sutras and treatises.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
DGA said:
So one can't assume that mimicking the complex dialectics of the debates at Nalanda, or the rhetoric-less rhetoric of eleventh-century Ch'an masters, in an environment like this will have the effect one intends.

Astus wrote:
As I see it, if there is any meaning behind "not relying on words and letters", that is using "live words" (活句, http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=3020&wr_id=30 ), i.e. expressing the Dharma in common language based on one's understanding. And that's not a new idea, since this is what wisdom is, and from wisdom arises skilful means. However, history seems to teach that ossification is inevitable. Much like what the Buddha said about old age. But the solution is not in creative terminology either (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html ).

DGA said:
Peter Hershock's idea that Ch'an masters communicate much as improvisational jazz musicians do may be helpful here.  It's situational, collaborative, of-the-moment--always something new, and because you don't have time to think about your next move, you have no choice but to open up and pour out whatever it is you got.

Astus wrote:
There are stories like that in every tradition. Chan only formalised it, thus turning it into a repetitive standard, therefore losing its vitality.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
In Zen speak, with all those wise-crazy Koans, sometimes the straight is crooked, and the crooked is the straightest non-way from A to B.

Astus wrote:
While it may seem so, that there is some strange Zen lingo, it is rather a literary product of the Song era, primarily known from the koan collections (e.g. Blue Cliff Record). While there might be some Christian communities around who like to imitate the language of the original KJV, normally people use today's English. I think that a code language for Zen does not facilitate going beyond conceptuality, rather it is a hindrance people only waste their time on to figure it out. Thus Dahui put aside the literary style and offered the huatou method as a direct cut. Even today his letters are quite readable, especially when compared to Yuanwu's comments in the BCR or Dogen's Shobogenzo. Similarly, if you look at works from the Tang era (e.g. http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment, http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang%20Po/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang-po.htm ), they lack the over complicated style and follow standard Buddhist terminology.

As for wise-crazy koans:

"Unfortunately, the majority of the exchanges or anecdotes composed in the encounter dialogue format are not very good stories, in any meaningful sense. In fact, a huge number of Chan stories or exchanges, included in texts such as Jingde chuan deng lu and Bi yan lu, can be viewed as little more than nonessential ramblings, a peculiar type of religious gibberish. Basically, we are confronted with countless examples of mass-produced textual materials that tend to be highly formulaic, numbingly repetitive, and ostensibly pointless. One of the things that keeps amazing me is how otherwise intelligent or sincere people can take this sort of stuff seriously, although the history of religion is filled with blind spots of that sort."
(Mario Poceski: The Records of Mazu and the Making of Classical Chan Literature, p 170-171)

jundo cohen said:
It is our ordinary thinking, ordinary assumptions, common sense and ordinary ways of expressing it all in language which misleads and gets us into so much trouble. Only by twisting and reinventing the language can one express what is so hard to express, and straighten out what is crooked.

Astus wrote:
The problem is not with ordinary language or even ordinary thinking. It is taking all that seriously that makes us dissatisfied and craving for something else. A reinvented language is still a trap, perhaps even more so, it is a double trap: looking for a second head, exchanging one dark pit for another, holding on the neighbouring branch instead of the current one.

jundo cohen said:
it is not that at all, and is through and through something "significantly more fascinating."

Astus wrote:
What is it then?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 16th, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
The one caution I might offer is that many Zen folks  might step right through and back on questions of either affirmation or denial. This is true with Dogen as well, where certain concepts and propositions might be rejected only to be turned on their head and reinvigorated again. That was a good way to avoid both the extremes of eternalism or nihilism.

Astus wrote:
Word play may have its time and place, but, especially on a forum, I prefer straightforward language. Avoiding extremes is not that difficult.

"when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html )

In practice that is quite simple as well. It is neither grasping/thinking, nor rejecting/not thinking, but seeing that all phenomena come and go. There the error of eternity is assuming that there is an independent witness/awareness, while the error of annihilation is the attempt to eliminate some/all experiences.

jundo cohen said:
Many Zen Teacher ancient and modern would speak of a "True Self" of some kind, but the danger was in reifying the concept.

Astus wrote:
There is no problem with talking about a true self, original nature and such. It's just that it turns out to be nothing more than this ordinary mind, even though it suggests something significantly more fascinating.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 15th, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Seeing the True Self and then Dropping it.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Master Keizan: The master of the house is ''I'' (Keizan: Denkoroku, case 1 on Siddharta Buddhas enlightenment: The Transmission of the Lamp(Light?))
Please look into what Dogen calls the Srenika heresy in Bendowa and Bussho. That will make it clear that there is no place for any self.

Master Zhao Zhu/Joshu: Take one look at me, I am nothing other than I am. The True Self is simply this. Right here what more is there to be sought for? (Zhao Zhu: The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu: James Green Translation: p 78.)
That is a misleading excerpt. Here's what's translated as "true self":

主人公 - hero (of a novel or film) / main protagonist
The Foguang E-dictionary (佛光電子大辭典) explains: It is a Chan term used to point to everyone's inherent buddha-nature. (禪林用語。指人人本具之佛性。)
Another interesting note is that Daehaeng's hallmark term is Juingong (主人空), and that's pronounced the same as 主人公 but the last character is changed to 空, i.e. emptiness, so it means "empty doer", because there is no constant element. Once one assumes a changeless thing or self, that's falling into the extreme view of eternalism.

The section the excerpt is from means that there is no other self to look for, buddha-nature is just what is. To suppose a "big/true self" behind a "small/false self", that is not Buddhism at all, much less Chan.

The preceding paragraph in Green's translation says:

"'To hold on to self is corrupt, to not hold on to self is pure.' It is just like a mad dog who is always trying to get more and more to eat. Where is the Buddha to be found? Thousands and ten thousands of people are 'seeking-for-Buddha' fools. If you try to find one person of the Way [among them] there are none. If you want to become a disciple of the 'King of Emptiness', don't give illness to your mind."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Simon E. said:
Isn't part of the problem that we are conditioned to analyse everything ?
Our education systems value that analytical process without always teaching concomitant synthesis..so we see cetana, vipaka and karma as separate phenomena for investigation..in reality of course all arises together from Shunyata.

Astus wrote:
I would say it's the opposite. As long as one takes mind and mental phenomena without properly analysing them, they seem substantial. Once seen correctly - impermanent, empty, dependent - they turn out to be neither self nor related to self.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Karma is all there is.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html )

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.145.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Also see this chapter in Dan Lusthaus' book Buddhist Phenomenology called https://books.google.com.au/books?id=IeiwsT-XqwQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Astus wrote:
Lusthaus goes wrong there for three reasons.

1. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html to the quoted sutta.

2. In Yogacara all phenomena originate from the alaya-vijnana.

3. The whole of samsara and all the realms arise from the beings' karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Astus wrote:
That no matter the method, it's still about turning people to the Dharma, i.e. converting them.

Vasana said:
In this way, you share any merit you have amassed with all beings, thus multiplying it immeasurably and ensuring that even beings with very little or no merit at all with evil tendencies are not left out.

Astus wrote:
Dedicating merit is about letting go. But there is no benefit in it for others, unless they recognise and accept such sharing, that is, knowingly agree to such good actions.

Vasana said:
Even if you can't help all beings, the intention and resolve to eventually be able to do so is what will make this an actuality.

Astus wrote:
The point I'm pursuing here is about how that helping happens. As you said, they cannot save them but only provide guidance through giving instructions, just like Shakyamuni, who travelled far and wide and established the four orders.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
Proselytizers try and recruit or convert people to their faith and beliefs.  ... The resolve in Mahayana is to facilitate the natural liberation of all beings (in the sphere beyond subject, object & activity) ,  but it doesn't mean you go need to go screaming it from the roof-tops and handing out leaflets to anyone passing by. It's just not very skillful or effective and for the most part, completely unnecessary.

Astus wrote:
That's just a matter of efficiency in spreading the word. Marketing techniques, etc.

Vasana said:
If beings are ripe enough to want to explore the Dharma, then the conditions for this to happen will naturally come in to place by the force of their merit and spiritual inclinations. This is spoken of countless times in various sutras and again, is not exclusive to Mahayana as far as i know.

Astus wrote:
So, bodhisattvas do not need to pursue such course of action, there is no actively guiding beings, except for those who come and ask for it.

Vasana said:
Furthermore, trying to convert or benefit people is pointless unless you actually posses the wisdom and means for doing so,

Astus wrote:
That is, anyone not yet on the stage of nobility should not worry about all this saving all beings business.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
It kinda seems like you're grasping at straws here if that's your conclusion.

Astus wrote:
What else is there to it?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
There's a differrnce between guiding and saving.

Astus wrote:
Does then the Mahayana resolve comes down to the will to spread the Dharma far and wide? That is, active proselytisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
No one ever said anything about Buddhas saving beings.

Astus wrote:
Hasn't the objective of Mahayana been defined as saving all beings?

Vasana said:
they can manifest to inspire and teach the methods of doing so.

Astus wrote:
Certainly, that's the job of every Dharma teacher.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vasana said:
Objective of the Bodhisattvayana or 'Mahayana' = The complete liberation of all sentient beings. (Buddhahood)

Astus wrote:
Sentient beings must seek to save themselves and not wait for the Buddha to do it. If the Buddha could liberate sentient beings, then, since there have been Buddhas as numerous as all the dust motes that have ever existed, surely all of them would have been delivered by now. So why do we still loaf about in these realms of birth and death, unable to become Buddhas? Everyone should understand that sentient beings must save themselves. The Buddha will not do it. Make an effort! Practice yourself! Do not depend upon the power of other Buddhas. Therefore, the sutra says appropriately: "To seek and find the Dharma, do not depend upon the Buddha."
(Dazhu Huihai: http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment )


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 7th, 2016 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
Right, but not everyone knows that it's the way. That's same rationale for transforming the world into a Pure Land, (changing society in a way to foster that understanding,)

Astus wrote:
Changing society is a political goal. The pure land is when the world is perceived with a pure mind, and that's a bodhisattva's goal.

Taco_Rice said:
The layman unmistakably teaches emptiness, but his realization of emptiness (or at least, his actualization of his realization,) seems very different from that of the recluse.

Astus wrote:
It shows that the Dharma can be taught in any circumstances and even by an apparently ordinary layman. That's one of the main points of the sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
rather than decide to leave all goals, instead decide to take up some Ultimate Goal like making the world into a Pure Land or something?

Astus wrote:
Hopelessness is not about despair, it is about seeing that there is nothing that can be wished for. It is already the pure land.

Vimalakirti sutra, ch 1 (BDK Edition, p 78):

“if a bodhisattva wishes to attain a pure land he should purify his mind. According to the purity of his mind is his buddha land pure!”
...
“Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s buddha land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāriputra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.”

See also: Platform sutra, ch 3.

Taco_Rice said:
Doesn't Vimalakirti's non-attachment ironically account for so much of the opulence he was able to use for the benefit of others?

Astus wrote:
Is this a section in the sutra you refer to or your interpretation of something in it?

Taco_Rice said:
Similarly, isn't the Emptiness of all phenomenon all the more reason to take up the Way of the Bodhisattva?

Astus wrote:
It is the way, not the reason to take it up.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Thoughts and reflection serve the thinker. Who will serve the sea of beings?

Astus wrote:
How are beings served? Can they be served at all? To know that, we should ask the reason for the detriment of beings, and address the cause.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
DGA said:
Does this mean that such a one has no more afflictions?  or does it mean that what had seemed to be trouble (the endless barrage of thoughts and emotions, the hurt of the world) has become indistinguishable from wisdom and compassion?

This matters in terms of method, because if it's the former, then the point is to cease thinking.  If it's the latter, then you do something else with the mind--there's no use in ceasing thought if it's of the same stuff as wisdom.

Astus wrote:
Affliction is anything one has an emotional attachment to. Once there is no such involvement, it is not an affliction. But this might be mistaken for lack of emotions and apathetic detachment.

Afflictions are already empty as they are. So there is no need to do anything with them. But this might be mistaken for embracing delusion.

Realistically, we can neither turn into robots nor keep our dissatisfying mindset. Thus the usual resignation that buddhahood is something far far away, that we are all sinful humans who can only hope for salvation from some higher being. That is one valid solution in Buddhism offered in Mahayana.

But I like to believe that there is another way. And that way is total relinquishment of subject, object and action. In other words: there is nobody to do anything. With a positive tone: everything is fine as it is. Translating it back to the basic terminology: the answer to dissatisfaction is not in satisfying it but dropping the wish itself. Although that sounds like we need to to something (drop the wish), that is not exactly true. To give up all hope one only needs to see that the goal is false. And that is realising that nobody can do anything. As Guanyin says in the Heart Sutra: "Due to non-acquisition, the bodhisattva, having relied on Perfect Wisdom, dwells without mental obstruction. From the non-existence of mental obstruction, he is fearless, he overcomes inverted erroneous views, and ultimately reaches Nirvāṇa."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 4th, 2016 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Buddha said to Subhūti: “The bodhisattvas and mahāsattvas should subdue their thoughts like this: All the different types of sentient beings, whether they be born from eggs, born from a womb, born from moisture or born spontaneously; whether or not they have form; whether they abide in perceptions or no perceptions; or without either perceptions or non-perceptions, I save them by causing them to enter nirvana without remainder. And when these immeasurable, countless, infinite number of sentient beings have been liberated, in actuality, no sentient being has attained liberation. Why is this so? Subhūti, If a bodhisattva abides in the signs of self, person, sentient being, or life-span, she or he is not a bodhisattva.”
(Diamond Sutra, ch 3, tr Muller)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 4th, 2016 at 3:04 AM
Title: Lay Chan Teachers
Content:
Astus wrote:
Inspired by the article: http://www.buddhachan.org/en/en-learn/origin.

There are two major records of biographies of lay students.

Jushi fendeng lu (居士分燈錄 / Record of the Division of the Lamp for Laymen; X86n1607) in 2 fascicles (72+38 biographies), by Zhu Shi'en (朱時恩), published in 1610.
Jushi zhuan (居士傳 / Biographies of Lay Buddhists; X88n1646) in 56 fascicles, by Peng Jiqing (彭際清), published in 1775.

I have looked up the names from the first fascicle of Shi'en's work and tried to provide some information in English. Most of them are quite famous historical figures, either as rulers, or as literati, or as both.

維摩詰 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimalakirti
傅大士 http://terebess.hu/zen/fuxi.html
楊衒之 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Xuanzhi
向居士 Xiang jushi (disciple of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazu_Huike )
李通玄 http://gradworks.umi.com/34/83/3483183.html
龐道玄 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layman_Pang
崔群 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_Qun
甘贄 Gan Zhi (disciple of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanquan_Puyuan )
陸亘　Lu Gen (disciple of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanquan_Puyuan )
白居易 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Juyi
裴休 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pei_Xiu_%28Tang_dynasty%29
李翱 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ao_%28philosopher%29
于頔 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Di
王敬初　Wang Jingchu (disciple of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiyang_school )
陳操　Chen Cao (disciple of http://terebess.hu/zen/muzhou.html )
陸希聲 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Xisheng
張拙　Zhang Zhuo (disciple of Shishuang Qingzhu)
王延彬　Wang Yanbin (disciple of Changqing Huileng, governor of Quanzhou, nephew of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Shenzhi )
王隨　Wang Sui (disciple of Shoushan Shengnian, prime minister)
楊億 Yang Yi (disciple of Guanghui Yuanglian)
曾會　Zenghui (disciple of Xuedou Zhongxian)
李遵勗　Li Zunxu (disciple of Guyin Yuncong, military commissioner, son-in-law of emperor Taizong, brother-in-law of emperor Zhenzong, elder relative of emperor Renzong)
許式　Xu Shi (disciple of Dongshan Xiaocong)
夏竦 Xia Song (disciple of Guyin Yuncong, general, Duke of Ying)
范仲淹 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_Zhongyan
楊傑　Yang Jie (disciple of Tianyi Yihuai)
劉經臣 Liu Jingchen (disciple of Zhihai Benyi)
孫比部 Sun Bibu (disciple of Yangqi Fanghui)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, it is important for relaying the teachings. We have already discussed this you and I. Not into a repeat.

Queequeg said:
Can you link the discussion?

Astus wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19445


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is this simultaneity important for? Certainly not for relaying teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
Caodemarte said:
If so, then please be the first one to cast your stones!

Astus wrote:
Dogen did not agree with the use of toothbrush in China - virtually called them idiots - and wanted people to go back to using sticks to clean their teeth.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
the Dharmakaya the nature of appearances as well.

Astus wrote:
One better not fixes too much on words.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Milarepa's secret to success
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's a different approach:

Reverend Ma was sitting in a spot, and Reverend Rang took a tile and sat on the rock facing him, rubbing it. Master Ma asked, "What are you doing?" Master [Huairang] said, "I'm rubbing the tile to make it a mirror." Master Ma said, "How can you make a mirror by rubbing a tile?" Master [Huairang] said, "If I can't make a mirror by rubbing a tile, how can you achieve buddhahood by sitting in meditation?"

And a spin on that story by Dogen in Kokyo (SBGZ, vol 1, p 329-330, BDK Edition):

"Clearly, in truth, when polishing a tile becomes a mirror, Baso becomes buddha. When Baso becomes buddha, Baso immediately becomes Baso. When Baso becomes Baso, zazen immediately becomes zazen. This is why the making of mirrors through the polishing of tiles has been dwelled in and retained in the bones and marrow of eternal buddhas; and, this being so, the eternal mirror exists having been made from a tile.
While we have been polishing this mirror—in the past also—it has never been tainted. Tiles are not dirty; we just polish a tile as a tile. In this state, the virtue of making a mirror is realized, and this is just the effort of Buddhist patriarchs. If polishing a tile does not make a mirror, polishing a mirror cannot make a mirror either. Who can suppose that in this “making” there is [both] “becoming” buddha and “making” a mirror? 
Further, to express a doubt, is it possible, when polishing the eternal mirror, to mistakenly think that the polishing is making a tile? The real state at the time of polishing is, at other times, beyond comprehension.
Nevertheless, because Nangaku’s words must exactly express the expression of the truth, it may be, in conclusion, simply that polishing a tile makes a mirror. People today also should try taking up the tiles of the present and polishing them, and they will certainly become mirrors. If tiles did not become mirrors, people could not become buddhas. If we despise tiles as lumps of mud, then we might also despise people as lumps of mud. If people have mind, tiles must also have mind. Who can recognize that there are mirrors in which, [when] tiles come, tiles appear? And who can recognize that there are mirrors in which, [when] mirrors come, mirrors appear?"


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness
- as the nature of all appearances: dharmadhatu
- as the wisdom of buddhas: dharmakaya


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 5:40 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
rory said:
also the great reviver of modern Korean Son Kyongho Song'u.

Astus wrote:
While he lacked the training from any particular teacher - like Hanshan or perhaps Xuyun - he was a strong meditator like the other two. Although, most interestingly, in his last seven years he just disappeared from the scene. An even bigger name in Korean Buddhism is Wonhyo, who not only did not go to China to become a student, unlike his friend Uisang, but had an interesting life story as well. But these people are more examples of individual effort rather than simply learning from scriptures.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 5:33 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
he loves taking indefensible positions merely for the hell of it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
DGA said:
My point is merely that study alone, or meditation alone, is inadequate to the path.  Where do the masters quoted above disagree with that?

Astus wrote:
Nowhere, of course. The general idea is that one should obtain a solid level of training, and then one should practise on one's own, in a self-sufficient way. And even there practising alone doesn't necessarily mean leaving the monastery or the city.

Still, you might also consider this (i.e. they discard not only book knowledge, but oral sayings as well):

"Followers of the Way, don’t have your face stamped with the seal of sanction by any old master anywhere, then go around saying, ‘I understand Chan, I understand the Way.’ Though your eloquence is like a rushing torrent, it is nothing but hell-creating karma. The true student of the Way does not search out the faults of the world, but eagerly seeks true insight. If you can attain true insight, clear and complete, then, indeed, that is all."
(Record of Linji, p 13, tr Sasaki)

"Virtuous monks, what are you seeking as you go around hither and yon, walking until the soles of your feet are flat? There is no buddha to seek, no Way to complete, no dharma to attain."
(Record of Linji, p 27, tr Sasaki)

"In reality, there is not the slightest thing that could be the source of understanding or doubt for you. Rather, you have the one thing that matters, each and every one of you! Its great function manifests without the slightest effort on your part; you are no different from the patriarch-buddhas! [But since] the root of your faith has always been shallow and the influence of your evil actions massive, you find yourselves all of a sudden wearing many horns. You’re carrying your bowl bags far and wide through thousands of villages and myriads of hamlets: what's the point of victimizing yourselves? Is there something you all are lacking? Which one o f you full-fledged fellows hasn't got his share?
Though you may accept what I am saying for yourself, you're still in bad shape. You must neither fall for the tricks of others nor simply accept their directives. The instant you see an old monk open his mouth, you tend to stuff those big rocks right into yours, and when you cluster in little groups to discuss [his words], you're exactly like those green flies on shit that struggle back to back to gobble it up! What a shame, brothers!"
(Record of Yunmen, p 103-104, tr App)

DGA said:
Is that the behavior of someone who actively avoids oral instruction in Dharma?

Astus wrote:
That's fairly absurd. People are already conditioned to find enlightened masters as the direct source of knowledge. At the same time, because of that, looking for liberation from others is a mistake, just like the contempt of thinking oneself to be all-knowing.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Matt J said:
Let's examine your list:

Astus wrote:
Huineng:

"When he reached the words ‘responding to the nonabiding, yet generating the mind’ I experienced a great enlightenment, [realizing that] all the myriad dharmas do not transcend their self-natures."
(Platform Sutra, ch 1, p 23, BDK Edition)

That is a line directly from the Diamond Sutra, not an explanation.

Zongmi:

"Indeed, it would be difficult to over-emphasize the importance that the Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment had for Tsung-mi. It was, to begin with, the catalyst for his first enlightenment experience. Shortly after having become a novice monk under Tao-yi in Sui-chou (Szechwan) in 804, he came across a copy of the Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment for the first time at a maigre gathering (chai) at the home of a local official. After only reading two or three pages, he had an awakening, an experience whose intensity so overwhelmed him that he found himself spontaneously dancing for joy. (It is worth noting that Tsung-mi's initial enlightenment did not occur while he was absorbed in meditation. Nor, as in the case of so many well-known Ch'an enlightenment stories, did it occur as a sudden burst of insight at the turning words or dramatic action of a master. Rather, it came about as a result of reading several lines of scripture.)"
(Peter N. Gregory: http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Tsung-Mi-s-Perfect-Enlightenment-Retreat.pdf )

Hanshan:

"Since I had no one there to consult with about my enlightenment experience, I read The Surangama Sutra, hoping to gain insight and verification. I had previously read the Sutra but I hadn't understood its main theme. Now, however, I absorbed its meaning effortlessly. As the months passed, my understanding deepened and expanded until I could grasp its profundity without a single doubt."
(The Autobiography & Maxims of Chan Master Han Shan, p 16)

"For Yunqi Zhuhong and Hanshan Deqing, training through self-cultivation was encouraged, and nominal and formulaic instructions from pretentious masters were despised. Eminent monks, who practiced meditation and asceticism but without proper dharma transmission, were acclaimed as acquiring “wisdom without teachers” (wushizhi), a laudable title for them but a misfortune in the eyes of the more orthodox Chan masters in later generations, for whom dharma transmission defined their identity as Chan monks in a certain lineage.
The negative attitude toward the role of teacher can be seen from Hanshan Deqing’s perspective. Though never receiving dharma transmission, he was often asked to write prefaces to the records of transmission in some obscure lineages. His writings testify that although the practice of dharma transmission was revived, Hanshan Deqing questioned its value seriously. For him, the enlightenment of the mind was more important than the nominal claim of dharma transmission. Because true enlightenment experience was valued, a few self-proclaimed Chan masters in the late Ming gained reputations as eminent monks without acquiring dharma transmission."
(Jiang Wu: Enlightenment in Dispute, p 41)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 6:28 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
DGA said:
Does anyone know of an example of a contemporary or historical Buddhist master who has attained any degree of realization with nothing in support of his or her endeavors (in this lifetime) but a library card?  (or audio/video recording for that matter?)

Astus wrote:
It's assuming that there could be a situation where the person knows not a single Buddhist. And if there were such a being, who would know about them anyway? On the other hand, there are famous historical masters who attained realisation from written works, as I have http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=322047#p322047 some of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
In Tibetan iconography, Dharma books are a symbol representing the enlightened speech of the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Good to know. Then writing and speech are truly inseparable.

"Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, tr BTTS)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Sakyamuni Buddha wrote so many books, eh?  Good thing, too, for his followers, since there were no teachers to teach.

Astus wrote:
Very good point. Still, they were eventually penned down and preserved as scriptures. And there are some other things: Why do they refer to themselves as books? How can they be placed in a stupa? What was hidden by the Nagas and retrieved by Nagarjuna?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sūtras are not written texts. This idea is at the heart of your misunderstanding.

Astus wrote:
What non-written sutra do you know of? Even in Tibetan iconography Manjusri holds a book as a representative of the PP teachings.

Malcolm said:
How can the PP, which is inexpressible, beyond thought and concepts be contained in a book?

Astus wrote:
Since it is inexpressible, it is not obtained from buddhas or teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
the sūtra makes it clear that the doctrine of the PP must be heard from another.

Astus wrote:
The doctrine is contained in the sutra, and the sutra is a written text. What is there to be heard from another? It is pointless to have someone read it out, and nowadays even a smartphone can do that.

Chapter 4 not only states that a single copy is worth more than innumerable relics, but explains that the reason for that is it being the source of buddhahood. Similar statements are found in other scriptures - or possibly the majority of Mahayana sutras. It does not simply state that it is meritorious to copy them, it equates the text with the Tathagata himself, therefore the sutra can be used (venerated and studied) in the same way as if one had the Buddha in front of oneself.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, you have not understood the colophons of this sūtra: once he has heard the perfect wisdom, he follows and pursues the reciter of dharma and does not let him go, until he knows this perfection of wisdom by heart or has got it in the form of a book, just as a cow does not abandon her young calf"
"Hearing" requires hearing it from someone.

Astus wrote:
That's in chapter 14, not the colophon. Also, the sutra has existed as a book as far as we can tell, not to mention that its translations are definitely textual works. Plus the sutra itself makes it clear that one should read and copy it, just like other Mahayana scriptures recommend the same for themselves. Why make copies if one needs to hear it? And what difference does it make if one reads it on paper or listens to the same text read out?

How about reading it loudly for oneself? Especially the sections of the Lotus Sutra that talks about the Lotus Sutra. That's some serious self-referential loop. It's like the Pure Land practice of mind reciting, mind listening (心念心聽): "The mind begins to think, which moves the tongue; the tongue in turn moves, producing sound, and that sound returns to the Self-Mind."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Matt J said:
Classical Indian teachings

Astus wrote:
Which ones?

Matt J said:
The teacher prevents one from getting caught up in one's own delusions.

Astus wrote:
Only if one trusts in, listens to, and understands that teacher. But then carefully studying the sutras can do the same.

Matt J said:
The scriptures prevent the teachers from making up their own stuff.

Astus wrote:
If they are faithful to the Buddha's teachings. That also means there is nothing new a teacher can say. On the other hand, as long as students rather listen to anyone who looks authentic, there is little chance of catching the master talking nonsense. That's where the role of a larger community comes in, fellow elders, monastic peers, and such.

Matt J said:
And personal experience prevents it from being a merely intellectual exercise.

Astus wrote:
That's not an easy one at all, since people usually see what they want to see. And that's what a clear eyed teacher should protect against, they say. Except that they can only do that to a good student who listens ("good sravaka"). So, right view comes first. Something that can also be learnt from books.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that even though he has a vision of the Tathāgatas before hand, he insists on finding Bodhisattva Dharmodgata to hear the PP directly from him.

Astus wrote:
That is a possible interpretation, not really emphasised in the sutra itself. However, it is stated repeatedly in this and other sutras that the scripture itself is the carrier and transmitter of the teaching - after the demise of Shakyamuni - worthier of veneration than relics.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Actually, what is means is that you need a teacher. There are a ton of other citations that make the same point.
And, of course, there is the story of Sadaprarudita in the 8000 PP sūtra.

Astus wrote:
In that story, Sadaprarudita is told that the teaching will be either oral or scriptural:

"When you progress like this, you shall before long be able the study the perfection of wisdom either from a book, or from the mouth of a monk who preaches dharma."

And then we see how the teaching is deposited in a stupa:

"Sadaprarudita replied: “Where is this perfection of wisdom, the mother and guide of the Bodhisattva?”
Sakra answered: “The holy Bodhisattva Dharmodgata has placed it in the middle of this pointed tower, after he had written it on golden tablets with melted Vaidurya, and sealed it with seven seals."

Following that, the Buddha entrusts Ananda with the prajnaparamita to be written down and spread through copying:

"Therefore then, Ananda, a Bodhisattva who wants to acquire the cognition of the all-knowing should course in this perfection of wisdom,  hear it, take it up, study, spread, repeat and write it. When, through the Tathagata’s sustaining power it has been well written, in very distinct letters, in a great book, one should honour, revere, adore and worship it, with flowers, incense, scents, wreaths, unguents, aromatic powders, strips of cloth, parasols, banners, bells, flags and with rows of lamps all round, and with manifold kinds of worship.
...
As long as this perfection of wisdom shall be observed in the world, one can be sure that “for so long does the Tathagata abide in it,” that “for so long does the Tathagata demonstrate dharma,” and that the beings in it are not lacking in the vision of the Buddha, the hearing of the dharma, the attendance of the Samgha."

And there are other sections in PP8000 where it is made clear that one can perfectly well obtain prajnaparamita from the book (sutra) itself. E.g.:

"The Lord: So it is, Kausika. Moreover, not only one who has learned studied and repeated the perfection of wisdom, will have those qualities, but also one who worships a copy of it, he also, I teach, will have those advantages here and now.
Sakra: I also will protect one who worships a copy of the perfection of wisdom, and still more so one who in addition learns, studies and repeats it."

and this section explains your quote about "should never be abandoned even at the cost of one’s life.":

"If a Bodhisattva reacts in such a way to the perfection of wisdom, if he delights in seeing and hearing it, bears it in mind and develops it, keeps his mind fixed on it without diverting it elsewhere, feels an urge to take it up, bear it in mind, preach, study and spread it, if, once he has heard the perfect wisdom, he follows and pursues the reciter of dharma and does not let him go, until he knows this perfection of wisdom by heart or has got it in the form of a book, just as a cow does not abandon her young calf"

Malcolm said:
The Ārya-ratnākara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states: In order to fully enter the dharmadhātu, one must rely on a virtuous mentor, associate with them and honor them.

Astus wrote:
Now that is something, although without context it is still not that clear. When it says mentor, is it kalyanamitra, upadhyaya, or something else?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm said:
...pretty much says a teacher is indispensable.

Astus wrote:
It's possible to read it that way. Or it can mean that once such a precious opportunity has arisen one better not lets it slip away.

Malcolm said:
in Vajrayāna, a teacher, it goes without saying, is definitely indispensable

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is a good example. There is no doubt left about it, as it's repeated over and over. However, I don't see the same rule set up outside that tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
DGA said:
working with an authentic teacher is indispensable.

Astus wrote:
For what? There are the three trainings: discipline, meditation, wisdom. Discipline requires to keep the precepts. The precepts themselves are well explained in the scriptures. True, full ordination normally has requirements, but that's probably not what you meant. Meditation requires cultivation on one's own. As for the methods, stages and hindrances, they are explained in detail in texts. Wisdom requires studying the teachings. The teachings themselves are contained in the canon. At what point is a teacher indispensable?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dear Malcolm,

I appreciate your quotes (as always), and I can only agree with them. However, they don't seem to say the indispensability of teachers.

Malcolm said:
such a guru is to be praised

Astus wrote:
Certainly.

Malcolm said:
Rely on a virtuous mentor

Astus wrote:
An unvirtuous one definitely sounds like a bad idea.

Malcolm said:
should never be abandoned even at the cost of one’s life

Astus wrote:
Since it's not that easy to find one, it seems logical not to abandon them after all the trouble.

Malcolm said:
give them respect.

Astus wrote:
Doesn't that go without saying?

These lines from the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra ( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/sutra_of_perfect_enlightenment.html#div-10 ) are probably much closer to that intention:

"Good Sons, sentient beings of the degenerate age must arouse "great mind" and seek Genuine Teachers. Those who want to practice should seek out only someone with correct insight, whose thoughts do not abide in characteristics, who is not attached to the realms of the arhats and solitary realizers, and whose mind is constantly pure even while manifesting the world's afflictions."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
jikai said:
Of course it happens in combination. That was never really the issue. I also made no suggestion that one should dismiss or label sutra as insufficient. Nothing I've written suggests that.

Astus wrote:
Yes, I did not assume so either. My post was ambiguous to that extent, as I wasn't simply responding to you but rather following up on what you had written, continuing the line of thought.

jikai said:
I think part of what drives the either/or discussions about this is that the traditional accounts tend to come down as suggesting the importance of a teacher and thus oral transmission. But we live in a time in which many practice without teachers/ a sangha.

Astus wrote:
Surely the community is important and precious, that's what keeps the Dharma alive. What I object to is this idea that an "authentic teacher" is somehow the key to everything. And I'm not judging Vajrayana here, it's another business. If there is anything in the tradition that is regularly emphasised on the social level, that is monastic life. With monastic life comes not only the rules but also a number of teachers and Dharma-brothers. However, as people rather stay householders, and there are not many actual monks or nuns around, this idea of the teacher gained currency. But I think it is truly a modern view - not that there is anything wrong with that - that has a romantic baggage with it.

I am not an advocate of people following their own ideas and never contacting communities. But, as you say, there are new situations, and it is a fact that some are loners and/or have no access to communities. However, there is better access to fellow Buddhists than ever before, for instance through this forum. Saying that those who do not visit a teacher at regular intervals are not proper practitioners and their meditation leads only to their own damnation, that's harsh.

“Good friends, if you wish to cultivate this practice, you may do so either as a householder or in a monastery. Householders who are able to practice this are like those persons of the East whose minds [harbor] good. Those in the monastery who do not cultivate it are like those people of the West whose minds [harbor] evil. It is only that the mind should be pure—then it is the Western [Paradise] of the self-nature!”
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]?”
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, p 40, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I think, Astus, Meido has previously disputed your interpretation of the mind-to-mind transmission in Zen. As someone who has not received it, do you think you are qualified to assert what it is and what it is not?

Astus wrote:
Has he? In which thread?

As for the definition, it's not simply my assertion.

The master said: To not attain a single dharma is called the transmission of the mind. If you comprehend this mind, then there is no mind and no dharma.
[The questioner] said: If there is no mind and no dharma, why do you call it a transmission?
The master said: You have heard me say “transmission of the mind” and have taken it that there is something that can be attained. It is for this reason that the patriarch said, “When one recognizes the mind-nature, it should be called inconceivable. Clearly and distinctly without anything that is attained, when one attains it one does not speak of it as understanding.”
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, p 36, BDK Edition)

Besides that, if what you refer to is the unbroken chain of transmission from Shakyamuni to the present day, that's another issue.

Dan74 said:
lets not go too far and argue that Zen has not been an oral tradition, even in your examples of Huineng...

Astus wrote:
What is an oral tradition? Where the teachings and stories are preserved in an oral format, not something written. However, not only Zen, but Buddhism itself has been a literate religion for at least two thousand years. The canonical materials are not transmitted by memorisation, but in a written format. Buddhism in China established itself through written translations, not to mention that Chinese culture itself is strongly literate. What oral tradition is it you think there is?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
jikai said:
In fact I actually said that it must be accompanied by practice.

Astus wrote:
One can get all the instructions both in person and from scriptures, and it usually happens in combination. But the purpose is to confirm that information in one's own experience. And that's what Zen's mind-to-mind transmission means, and all the other similar statements. The sutras themselves are the words of the Buddha, so dismissing them or labelling them insufficient is almost like rejecting the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
That being said, even in such cases there is a big danger in going all on your own armed with a bunch of books. A teacher can monitor the student's progress and step in to correct misunderstandings.

Astus wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changlu_Zongze 's Zuochanyi states (tr. Bielefeldt): "The Śūraṅgama-sūtra, T'ien-t'ai's Chih-kuan, and Kuei-feng's Hsiu-cheng i give detailed explications of these demonic occurrences, and those who would be prepared in advance for the unforeseen should be familiar with them."

That is, a meditation manual - actually, the number one Zen manual from the Song era - recommends the study of three other texts if one wants to be familiar with further details, like hindrances and difficulties. It doesn't say: "ask the abbot" or "ask an enlightened master". That doesn't mean that teachers cannot be of assistance, but even they rely on the written works of the ancients.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Other examples are the 19th and 20th century reforms in Buddhism. Theravada was revived through returning to the Pali Canon as the primary source of authority. A strong example of such a reform is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribathgoda_Gnanananda_Thero and the http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/ where they focus only on the suttas without commentaries. Chinese Buddhism experienced something similar when they started to establish seminaries and began to study classical materials like Yogacara, and from that movement developed today's Humanistic Buddhism, and its founder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Shun, was a great scholar. Even in Soto Zen we can see that the scholar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzan_Zuih%C5%8D brought Dogen and his works back into currency and his reform ideas, based on written materials, define today's Soto in many aspects.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What counts as an oral tradition? The Tripitaka has existed in written form for quite a long time now. Mahayana sutras in particular are texts and not sayings, and they actively encourage people to read and copy them. Even nominally oral traditions like Zen have a huge literature. As an example, the famous koan collections (e.g. Blue Cliff Record, Book of Serenity) are purely literary works (wenzi chan 文字禪), and they were meant as such. As for enlightenment from sutras, there are a couple of famous examples even in Zen: Huineng (Diamond Sutra), Zongmi (Complete Enlightenment Sutra), Jinul (Platform Sutra), Hanshan Deqing (Shurangama Sutra). And even if we put aside Zen, there is no Mahayana doctrine that one should become a disciple and learn some sort of oral tradition. As Rory noted, the Huayan school is based on scriptures, so is every other school. And when it comes to commentaries, those are written as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
It's interesting how an "intro to Zen" easily turned into a question of belief in esoteric papers, astrology and cosmic energy. Until now I have not considered that they are related. So far the only time I have encountered qi related statements in classical Zen teachings - not modern teachers - was in Zongmi's Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity (原人論) criticising the belief in the "primal pneuma" (元氣) as the origin of the world.

The noted Indian origin of energy practices do not come up in the sutras, treatises or meditation manuals. The concept of prana and its yogic utilisation is a feature of Anuttarayogatantra, something not particularly related to Zen or even East Asian Buddhism. I am not really familiar with Shingon, but I don't recall that they have an energy system like that either. So, at what point has it become an element of Zen? There is Hakuin, so the origin in Rinzaishu is explained - and that also shows how such teachings were missing from the tradition before him. Shodo Harada is a Rinzaishu teacher after all.

The authenticity and validity of energy teachings aside, what do they have to do with Zen practice? What is their role? Is it only about obtaining a nice seated position? Is it an auxiliary practice to support zazen? Is it something more?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
First, if you insist on just dealing with appearances, you're on your own, literally, isolating yourself into little more than the impressions of light you perceive bouncing off objects. We can disagree, but you need to acknowledge, we're not talking about the same thing unless you are talking about not just appearances, but subjective experienceS as well.

Astus wrote:
Appearances are everything that there is. All dharmas. They can be split to the categories of external and internal, physical and mental, etc. as they usually are.

Queequeg said:
The difference is the emphasis.

Astus wrote:
Agreed.

Queequeg said:
Emptiness doesn't get your laundry done, and not doing it because "emptiness" just makes you gross.

Astus wrote:
People usually know how to manage their laundry, otherwise they can ask for help from mom. What more often is the problem is being bored and fed up with doing the laundry every weekend. That's where a deeper understanding of emptiness comes useful.

Queequeg said:
Everything can be Buddhist Problem Solving - if I am a medical doctor ... If I am a plumber ... The idea here is turning our entire experience into Buddhist practice, and not just in an isolated way for ourselves

Astus wrote:
I can agree with being a Buddhist all day long. That's what actual practice is about, during all activities.

My daily activities are not unusual,
I'm just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, discarding nothing,
In every place there's no hindrance, no conflict.
Who assigns the ranks of vermilion and purple?—
The hills' and mountains' last speck of dust is extinguished.
[My] supernatural power and marvelous activity—
Drawing water and carrying firewood.
(Pang Yun, tr Sasaki-Iriya-Fraser)

Queequeg said:
I think that approach of setting Buddhism apart pursued too zealously yields a bone dry Buddhism that is as appetizing as a bowl of chalk and of the most questionable efficacy

Astus wrote:
What I meant is to differentiate Buddhist methods from others. Regardless of a plumber being Buddhist or not, the same tools and methods are required to fix the toilet. And not a word of Dharma comes up in a plumbers school. That doesn't mean Buddhism cannot be used by a plumber in his job, nor that functional pipes are not important.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Wayfarer said:
We don't want to be literalistic about such expressions. Otherwise you make a concept out of them, and then it becomes a matter of belief, like the kinds of ideas found in scholastic philosophy. And they're OK,in their own way, but they don't capture the living essence of Zen, which is ever elusive.

Astus wrote:
In that case everything should be put between quotation marks. Rather, it is http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_reliances all over Buddhism that the teachings serve a purpose and should be used on the path. The teachings are brought alive by learning them, understanding them, and confirming them in one's own experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Dependent nature (alaya-vijnana) sans imputed nature is the perfected nature. Neither the dependent nature nor perfected nature are "change".

Astus wrote:
Dependent-nature is causes and conditions, the way everything changes. Imputing fixed elements is the delusion itself to get rid of.

Mother's Lap said:
The point of the quotes from the masters in the first post and in your last are upaya for the realisation of buddha-nature; the alaya-vijnana being designated as tathagatagarbha is a tenet. Conflating the two is where e-Zennists go astray.

Astus wrote:
What is the meaning of a tenet if not to establish correct view and generate liberating insight? Therefore, the Lankavatara Sutra (2.28) states: "the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
In the Lankavatara the alaya-vijnana is designated as the tathagatagarbha. So grass, tress etc. being traces manifesting from the alaya-vijnana, could in a sense be designated as such, however grass obviously does not manifest the two kayas separately and so cannot be taken as tathagatagarbha in that sense.

Astus wrote:
Appearances are all mind itself, not external entities, nor products manifesting out of the mind. So, "when it is understood that there is nothing in the world but what is seen of the Mind itself, discrimination no more rises, and one is thus established in his own abode which is the realm of no-work." (Lankavatara Sutra 3.77, tr Suzuki) And the point of the teaching is realisation of buddha-nature, not to set up a theory of it. "Now, Mahamati, what is perfect knowledge? It is realised when one casts aside the discriminating notions of form, name, reality, and character; it is the inner realisation by noble wisdom. This perfect knowledge, Mahamati, is the essence of the Tathagata-garbha." (2.23) How do you do that? "If you simply transcend the various dharmas of being and nonbeing, so that your minds are like the orb of the sun—always in the sky, its brilliance shining naturally, illuminating without [intending to] illuminate—isn’t this a matter that requires no effort? When you attain this, there is no place to rest. This is to practice the practice of the Buddhas, and it is to “be without abiding and yet to generate the mind.” This is your pure Dharma body, which is called the insurpassable bodhi." (Huangbo, in Zen Texts, p 38, BDK Edition)

So, why say that buddha-nature is change,  is lifting a finger, raising an eyebrow, "earth, grass, trees, walls, tiles, and pebbles"? Because it is not dwelling anywhere. "There is no place to stand where ones leaves the Truth. The very place one stands on is the Truth; it is all one’s being. All dharmas are Buddhadharmas, and all dharmas are liberation. Liberation is identical with suchness; all dharmas never leave suchness. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or reclining, everything is always inconceivable function." (Mazu, in Sun Face Buddha, p 66)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 6:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But I think "Buddha nature" ought to be put in quotes, or said with a wink.

Astus wrote:
Why?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
tingdzin said:
This, I think, is a stunningly wrongheaded statement, based on my own experience. Up until the latter half of the twentieth century, for example, a lot of esoteric Tibetan stuff was passed on strictly orally. While Zen is not Vajrayana, it seems to me there are still many things in the latter that students just don't hear about until they have been around for some time and made a commitment. Also, by the way, teachings not being "mainstream" does not mean they could not be vitally important; it could be that a teacher wanted to evaluate a disciple thoroughly over a long period before imparting them.

Astus wrote:
There were a lot of oral/personal instructions in Zen, and they were included in the records if the circumstances were right. That's what a significant amount of Zen literature is made up of. There was the practice of taking notes during lectures and personal discussions, then they were shared in a smaller or larger circle. Besides those that eventually made it into official records, there are some still in private/monastic collections that survived (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirigami_%28Soto_Zen%29 ).

Also, if you note the point at which those explanations involving the body's energetic system in the video come up, it is a topic to be covered at the beginning. It is not some high level secret instruction at all. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, unorthodox, or anything of that kind. But the fact that the language and teachings used are not present within the canonical materials is not because of some conspiracy to hide them.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 7:58 AM
Title: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Therefore, that the grasses, trees, thickets and groves are impermanent is the buddha nature; that humans and things, body and mind are impermanent — this is because they are the buddha nature. That the lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent — this is the buddha nature. Annuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, because it is the buddha nature, is impermanent; the great parinirvāṇa, because it is impermanent, is the buddha nature."
(Dogen: http://stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html )

"Buddhahood is emptiness, yet emptiness does not mean non-existence. Emptiness means that all things lack permanence. There is objective existence, but nothing is unchanging and eternal; everything that exists changes constantly. This ever-changing nature is Buddha-nature. Enlightenment is realizing the empty and impermanent nature of ourselves and the world. If you can live in emptiness without attaching to it, it is called "neither abiding in existence nor emptiness." Although everything continues to exist, there is no self that attaches to anything. Not abiding in existence and not abiding in emptiness is enlightenment."
(Sheng-yen: http://ddc.shengyen.org/cgi-bin/ccdd/show.py?s=09-04p0056 )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Ideas define the world and the self. To believe that the world and the self are like this and that on their own: that is delusion. To see that everything is defined by fictional ideas: that is seeing the emptiness of all phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Saving all beings
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
It's easy to interpret this as leaving others to their karmic retribution

Astus wrote:
It also tells you that if you want riches, you should be generous. If you need such motivational statements. It doesn't actually tell you what to do, but informs about the law of cause and effect. Apathy towards other beings is not exactly a positive mental factor, rather it's rooted in ignorance. At the same time, restlessness is also no good. Anyhow, not even buddhas can just put all beings into nirvana, they have to do it themselves.

Monlam Tharchin said:
So the proper response to others' suffering instead is the Six Perfections?

Astus wrote:
The six perfections constitute the path of the bodhisattva, the way to liberate all beings. It is also a wonderful summary of the path. The very first one is giving: benefiting others and practising letting go at the same time.

You can read extensively on them in http://kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/n6p_book_page.htm.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: Saving all beings
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
How does a Buddhist work in this life to save all beings?

Astus wrote:
As Malcolm said: the six perfections.

Monlam Tharchin said:
But if any sutra is used to make the medicine of emptiness into poison, it is this sutra (along with the Heart Sutra).

Astus wrote:
It is a poison when grasped as nothingness, as repression, as elimination. For instance, if you want to eradicate suffering, that is a mistake.

Monlam Tharchin said:
if beings lack physical and emotional health, how on earth will they practice the Dharma?

Astus wrote:
What gives beings well being according to the Buddha? Good deeds. Their own personally made merit. Similarly, bad fortune is the result of evil actions. That is why accumulating merit and so called purification practices are common.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, this is resolved by what the Buddha says, they retain the knowledge obscuration because of traces they fail to eradicate. It is not the case that they have active afflictions. But they do not eliminate all traces and until they do, they still possess a knowledge obscuration, in addition to the fact that as the Buddha says, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not realize the emptiness of phenomena, only the emptiness of persons.

Astus wrote:
What traces and where? Are those the effects of past deeds, what we can see (e.g. http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/English-Texts/Why-the-Buddha-Suffered/index.htm ) affecting the Buddha in the same way?

Knowledge obscuration is clinging to mental phenomena, dharmas that are within the skandhas. But if somebody is still bound by the skandhas, that is not liberation from samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Well, your qualm directly contradicts the Buddha's statement in the Lanka that śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas are liberated, but they have obscurations to full awakening.

Astus wrote:
I recognise it as well that there are contradictions. At the same time, the concept that sravakas are unbound (from attachment to skandhas) but still obscured (by conceptual attachments) is a contradiction in itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
Meido said:
Naturally on the Japanese Rinzai side the works of Hakuin, Torei and so on give a great deal of instruction in terms of energetic practices which are still transmitted (though again, the texts do not transmit the entirety of the oral instruction).

Astus wrote:
As you say, when such elements were included, you can find them in texts. Similarly, their lack in teachings mean that they were not considered important, mainstream, or did not exist at all.

Meido said:
However, I have yet to meet any Zen (Soto or Rinzai) or Chan teacher whose instruction did not contain references to ki/qi, directions on where the breath and energy should be placed and cultivated, instruction for recognizing energetic imbalances and exercises prescribed to remedy such, etc. So I would not say that it is simply a case of "certain teachers".

Astus wrote:
Remedying hindrances is part of any manual, like the http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/zzyk.shtml. It could be an interesting research to find out when exactly such energy related elements started to occur.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Asanga states in his commentary in the Uttaratantra: ...
Vasubandhu states in the Sūtra-alaṃkara, he states: ....
He provides a definition as well: That concept of the three wheels,
is asserted as the knowledge obscuration.
Then of course there is the passages in the Lanka in which the Buddha states that due to not realizing selflessness in phenomena, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a knowledge obscuration.

Astus wrote:
All that are good and well. And in order to be obscured by agent-action-object and the emptiness of appearances one needs to maintain some attachment, an identification with the aggregates and sensory areas. So if such clinging is asserted in the sravakas, then they cannot even be called liberated, they are lost in some pseudo-nirvanic state (e.g. the apparitional city in ch. 7 of the Lotus Sutra). But if there is no such grasping, they cannot be obscured either.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
kirtu said:
So it's more oral instruction (or more correctly included in oral instruction that I have received).

Astus wrote:
There are not that many meditation manuals in the canon, and almost none from the Zen school. It's quite another matter that certain teachers use old Chinese medical ideas in their oral instructions, but that's a cultural thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
It was addressed. I referred you to where you can find the Sarvastivadin discussions, as well as Agamic sources, for the idea that śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a nonafflictive ignorance.

Astus wrote:
Anything in English? Also, the question I referred to is the reason for it, since generally it's the knowledge obscuration attributed to sravakas, but such obscuration can exist only if they have attachment to something, however, they are free from the skandhas and dhatus, so there cannot be anything to be obscured by.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
kirtu said:
is definitely found in traditional instruction.

Astus wrote:
Which one? Can you point to some classic Buddhist meditation manuals discussing it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
they mutually cause each other. They are designations that have meaning in tension. To speak of wisdom, you have to speak of nescience, and to speak of nescience it must stand in contrast to wisdom.

Astus wrote:
They are relative terms, there's no disagreement on that.

Queequeg said:
If one being's experience is invoked then the intersubjective experience of every being from time without beginning to time without end, within the immediate present scope of experience to the extent of the dharmadhatu, are all invoked.

Astus wrote:
That sounds fine, but I don't see it as anything more than pure rhetoric. For instance, in order to include past and future appearances would require some Sarvastivada style eternal dharmas. Also, to mix the experiences of all beings would mean the denial of personal karma. Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar with Huayan's four dharmadhatus and the idea of non-obstruction of phenomena, but that is basically a nice way to say dependent origination.

Queequeg said:
In considering the learning in China before the introduction of Buddhism, Zhiyi saw them as preparatory teachings.

Astus wrote:
Guifeng Zongmi has a similar scheme he describes in the https://books.google.com/books/about/Inquiry_into_the_origin_of_humanity.html?id=HdQKAAAAYAAJ treatise, a system otherwise known as the five levels of dhyana. I have no problem with that idea, although I don't find it particularly important either.

Queequeg said:
An expansive, integrative approach draws Buddhism into an engaged stance with the full spectrum of human experience. The more formalistic approach you advocate has an effect that I would describe as isolating.

Astus wrote:
There are lot of confusion about what is the Dharma and how to use it. So, I believe that that is what needs to be clarified. Matching it up with all sorts of philosophies and religions only adds to the confusion, especially because one would need to be knowledgeable about those other ideas as well as Buddhism in order to engage properly. There is no need to study Confucianism or any other philosophy in order to learn Buddhism. Rather, one should put aside whatever information one already possesses and open one's mind to the Dharma. But once one has a good grasp on the teachings, it is no problem to engage with whatever comes up. And that is where this topic was intended to start, from the perspective of using the teachings to tackle various problems in life. Because, as I think you say as well, one has to address all sorts of experiences. But it comes after one has taken refuge (actually, not just formally) in the Triple Jewels, not before.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Ignorance... moha or avidyā ?

Astus wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/avijja.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
All this amounts to saying is that you have no confidence in any sources, apart from the ones you like and serve your exegetical purposes.

Astus wrote:
I think the technical term for that is discerning direct (nitartha) from indirect (neyartha). However, that does not address any of the raised issues, particularly the ignorance of arhats.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Glad you have placed it on such a subjective basis.

Astus wrote:
When there are such stories on both disciples and the Buddha, then some treatises come up with a way to explain those events in one way and another, that is those author's interpretations. As for my side, such theories are neither well established nor balanced, although they certainly serve a purpose. And again, as I have mentioned before, this is the case of divergences in exegesis.

As a footnote: those who are believed to have attained buddhahood (or something similar) in traditions like Zen and Vajrayana are at the same time added with an explanation for why they did/do not appear as magnificent and superhuman as buddhas are supposed to be. Unless they are people who lived long ago and have entire books of legends about their lives.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You can read the Agama citations which detail the non-afflictive ignorance of arhats and pratyekabuddhas in the Abhidharmakośaṭīkālakṣaṇānusāriṇ, etc.

Astus wrote:
Such a category can be used to exploit otherwise ordinary stories and claim that arhats are not that perfect. At the same time, similar events in the Buddha's biography can be found as well, but those are explained in a very different light.

But still the source of such ignorance is not explained. Or maybe it's the expectation of fantastic omniscience - beyond what logically can come from clear seeing of appearances - of a buddha that would need to be established. Otherwise, such stories can only fall into the category of parables.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
jundo cohen said:
That is the case, that seeing the nature is where's its atlessly at.

Astus wrote:
Atlessly? Less likely? At least? Sorry, I don't get it.

jundo cohen said:
But what makes you think that the pure act of sitting and "seeing the nature" are necessarily two things?

Astus wrote:
Depends on what you mean by pure act.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
kirtu said:
Well that's true.  But every teachers introduction to Zen will be somewhat different.  I didn't watch all of the video myself - did Harada Roshi actually get into shinkantaza or koan study in his short introduction?

Astus wrote:
Long talk on posture and breathing, then in the last few minutes mentioned how this calmness can eventually be brought out to everyday life and that is the "helping all beings" attitude. But mostly it's about detailing the basics of his style of zazen.

It is interesting how he explained the posture with chi, while there is Nishijima going on about the nervous system. However, neither of the two can be found in the sutras, treatises or even Zen classics. Nevertheless, apparently both feel the need to explain the posture with some non-Buddhist philosophy.

Still, all these nice physical and mental athletics, while perfectly fine and useful in a way, do not really touch the Zen of the buddhas and patriarchs, i.e. seeing into nature.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Neither arhats nor pratyekabuddhas are completely free from ignorance, only a buddha is

Astus wrote:
I meant in the Agamas, an arhat is completely free from ignorance, otherwise he would still be stuck in samsara. Of course, in a one vehicle approach, only a buddha is truly wise and free.

Malcolm said:
Arhats have ignorance, and this means they possess the knowledge obscuration.

Astus wrote:
What are they ignorant of? Knowledge obscuration means being bound by the view of grasper and grasped, the concepts of agent, object, and action. They are free from clinging to the five aggregates and the six sensory areas, so there is nobody to grasp anything. What is left then to be obscured by?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But it is not the case. For example, even Maudgalyayāna needed to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth.

Astus wrote:
Do you refer to the Ullambana Sutra? I don't find that story anywhere else.

Malcolm said:
But again, it isn't the case. Why? Because if it were the case, than even hinayāna stream entrants should have the same realization as a buddha, but they do not.

Astus wrote:
A stream-enterer is not yet free from ignorance, only an arhat is.

Malcolm said:
Or, the Agamas, as Nāgārjuna says very clearly, do not teach the path to Buddhahood, let alone buddhanature (which itself can only be seen by buddhas).
Mahāyāna sūtras provide details on a path that are not detailed in the Agamas. If they were detailed, the Mahāyāna sūtras would be unnecessary, not to mention the tantras and the Dzogchen tantras, etc.

Astus wrote:
As the Agamas teach freedom from appearances, and that means no obscurations, it is no different from realising buddha-nature. They do not describe any path to buddhahood and such, only the bare essentials. Mahayana teachings expand, clarify, and repeat the same teachings in different words, or sometimes with identical phrases.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
That is not all omniscience is for Mahāyan̄a. There are two kinds of omniscience a buddha possesses: the omniscience of just how things are and the omniscience of all things that there are.

Astus wrote:
And what are those two and three kinds of knowledges? The first is the knowledge of emptiness, thus the core of liberation. The second is the knowledge of paths, thus the ability to teach well. The third is the knowledge of things, that is the way appearances appear. Emptiness is not separate from dependent origination, so knowing the middle way covers the first and last knowledge. Also, since one just does not accidentally happen to earn the wisdom of buddhas, the path of how such wisdom is attained is known experientially, not to mention the wisdom coming from the fact of knowing how the mind works. So, while those three can be divided to arhats, bodhisattvas and buddhas, it seems logical to me that the full knowledge of one requires the other two as well.

Malcolm said:
So for you, arhats, first stage bodhisattvas, buddhas and pratyekabuddhas all demonstrate precisely the same qualities and realization. If not, why not?

Astus wrote:
Yes, from the wisdom side of things that's exactly what should happen. But there are a number of other factors that can be taken into account for such differences. The closest at hand is the explanation of establishing vows and accumulating merit. Vows separate people's aspirations - and that can even apply to buddhas with various features and buddha-lands - while merit accounts for differing abilities and qualities developed. That is basically saying that there is no tathagatagarbha and follows the other/older model of the bodhisattva path. But that's not the only option.

It is possible to keep buddha-nature with a one-vehicle explanation, where every level is only a stage on the path to buddhahood. And in order to explain the historical problem raised here by many, it can be said that while the Agamas are not at fault or lacking, the way they were interpreted by some is incorrect, thus we see that Mahayana apologetics are against Abhidharmic ideas primarily. Similarly, in Tibetan Buddhism they find the sutra teachings somewhat deficient as they actually view them through a number of treatises (while, for instance in some Mahamudra works quoting sutras that match with the highest teaching is fine).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Agamas/nikāyas teach leading a path of freedom, but not a path leading freedom and omniscience, the latter is found only in Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
Omniscience is not an attribute of the Buddha in the Agamas. Quite the contrary, some gods and other teachers claim omniscience, but they are refuted and, to some extent, ridiculed for that. At the same time, there are events in the Buddha's life that could not have happened if he had been omniscient. See this essay: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/buddha-omniscience.pdf.

As for Mahayana, omniscience is really just the prajnaparamita, not abiding in any dharma whatsoever.

"It will not stand anywhere, but it will stand on all-knowledge, by way of taking its stand nowhere."
(PP8000 1.5, tr Conze)

"For that reason all-knowledge also is a state in which one neither takes hold of anything, nor settles down in anything."
(PP8000 13.3, tr Conze)

Furthermore, buddha-nature is completely revealed once there is no grasping at illusory appearances, and all possible buddha-qualities manifest. Since the Agamas teach not relying on any dharma, that should also mean the accomplishment of all attributes of perfect enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Saving all beings
Content:
Astus wrote:
“The bodhisattvas and mahāsattvas should subdue their thoughts like this: All the different types of sentient beings, whether they be born from eggs, born from a womb, born from moisture or born spontaneously; whether or not they have form; whether they abide in perceptions or no perceptions; or without either perceptions or non-perceptions, I save them by causing them to enter nirvana without remainder. And when these immeasurable, countless, infinite number of sentient beings have been liberated, in actuality, no sentient being has attained liberation. Why is this so? Subhūti, If a bodhisattva abides in the signs of self, person, sentient being, or life-span, she or he is not a bodhisattva.”
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 3, also see ch 17)

As it states, it is a way to "subdue their thoughts". This is explained further by various Zen teachers:

“Good friends, now that we have done the repentances, I will express for you the four great vows. You should all listen closely: the sentient beings of our own minds are limitless, and we vow to save them all. ...
“Good friends, why don’t we all say [simply] ‘sentient beings are limitless, and we vow to save them all’? How should we say it? Certainly it’s not me who’s doing the saving!
“Good friends, the ‘sentient beings of our own minds’ are the mental states of delusion, confusion, immorality,90 jealousy, and evil. All these are sentient beings, and we must all [undergo] automatic salvation of the selfnature. This is called true salvation.
“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.When the false occurs, it is saved by the correct. When delusion occurs, it is saved by enlightenment. When stupidity occurs, it is saved by wisdom. When evil occurs, it is saved by good. Salvation such as this is called true salvation.
(Platform Sutra, ch 6, p 48-49, BDK Edition)

Question: "Does the Buddha really save or rescue all sentient beings?"  The master said: "There are really no sentient beings to be saved by Tathagata.  Since there is, in reality, neither self nor non-self, how then can there be a Buddha to save or sentient beings to be saved?"
(Huangbo Xiyun: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang%20Po/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Huang-po.htm )

"Because he persevered in these three pure practices of morality, meditation, and wisdom, he was able to overcome the three poisons and reach enlightenment. By overcoming the three poisons he wiped out everything sinful and thus put an end to evil. By observing the three sets of precepts he did nothing but good and thus cultivated virtue. And by putting an end to evil and cultivating virtue lie consummate all practices, benefited himself as well as others, and rescued mortals everywhere. Thus he liberated beings."
(Bodhidharma: 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 Bodhisattva, thought after thought, never separates himself from sentient beings; and since he understands that the substance of the mind is void, that in itself is known as and called 'the conversion and delivery of all sentient beings.' Thus, the wise man converts and delivers himself and thereby imperceptibly converts and delivers all other sentient beings from either reincarnation or extinction."
(Dazhu Huihai: http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/tsung-ching-record )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Is it? In Dhammapada, the Buddha says: Just as a bubble may be seen,
just as a faint mirage,
so should the world be viewed

Astus wrote:
If we analyse a bit deeper than just repeating over and over the same things ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y ) of superior or not, then it can be clear that on the wisdom side of things the Agamas teach the same complete freedom as any Mahayana or Vajrayana path (see http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=19609 and http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=21768 ). However, it should also be recognised that the bodhisattva path is more extensive when it comes to other aspects, particularly the ability to teach beings, as that's the main quality a buddha has to possess. And when I say extensive, it doesn't mean one cannot find those qualities in arhats, but they are not requirements.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Carlita said:
Given Nichiren was extremely against Pure Land teachings, how can one practice both without confliction even though they are both Meyahana teachings with the history you provided?

Astus wrote:
Go to schools like Tendai, or anything outside Japan, and such exclusivism is non-existent. Also, in real life, everyone is free to practice in whatever way one likes.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
krodha said:
The point is that only Buddhas are free of the knowledge obscuration. Only Buddhas see dharmakāya.

Astus wrote:
That's fine. It's not even been questioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
krodha said:
The emotional obscuration is sustained by kleśas, which can only be exhausted by the force of prajñā.

Astus wrote:
All obscurations are eliminated by wisdom.

krodha said:
there are different causes, and hence cessation of different causes to be rid of either obscuration.

Astus wrote:
"In general, whatever is an afflictive obscuration is necessarily a cognitive obscuration, but cognitive obscurations are not necessarily afflictive obscurations."
(Groundless Paths, p 575)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Malcolm said:
See the Abhisamaya-ālamkara, etc.

Astus wrote:
Then it is the mistake of the grasper-grasped, the not seeing of the emptiness of appearances, just as already defined. Therefore once attachment is relinquished, no more obscurations remain of either kind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Malcolm said:
it does not remove the knowledge obscuration.

Astus wrote:
How do you define knowledge obscuration?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Title: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is a topic raised by the question ( http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=320501#p320501 ) of whether freedom from attachments equals realising buddha-nature. Please tell if you agree or disagree and why. Here are some initial quotes.

Buddha-nature is hidden by the two obscurations:

"Buddhahood, spoken of as being luminous by nature [but] having been obscured by the massive web
Of the thick clouds of adventitious afflictive and cognitive [obscurations], just as the sun and the sky"
(Uttaratantrashastra 2.3, in When the Clouds Part, p 416)

What are those two?

"The barrier of vexing passions (Klesavarana) means the belief in what is wholly imaginary as being a real Atman; it gives precedence to the view that there is real individuality (Satkayadrsti). Its primary vexing passions (mulaklesas), with the other accompanying secondary passions (upaklesas), all perturb and torment the bodies and minds of sentient beings and act as a barrier to Nirvana. That is why they are all termed the barrier of vexing passions.
The barrier that hinders Absolute Knowledge (Jneyavarana) means the belief in what is wholly imaginary as being real dharmas ; it, too, gives precedence to the view that there is reality of individuality. Its false view, together with doubt, ignorance, desire, hate, conceit, etc., obscures the true nature of the known world and acts as a barrier to perfect Wisdom (Bodhi). That is why these are all termed the barrier that hinders Absolute Knowledge or Mahabodhi."
(Cheng Weishi Lun, p 671, tr Wei Tat)

What is required to be free from obscurations/hindrances (avarana)?

"Since generosity just leads to wealth,
Discipline [just leads to] heaven, and meditation [just] relinquishes the afflictions,
While prajna eliminates all afflictive and cognitive [obscurations],
It is supreme, and its cause is to study this [dharma]."
(Uttaratantrashastra 5.6, p 456)

"Since emptiness is the antidote to the darkness of afflictive and cognitive obscurations, how is it that one desiring omniscience does not promptly meditate on it?"
(Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life, 9.54)

And a commentary:

"To be sure, emptiness is the only corrective for the darkness of the emotional obscurations (the principal obstacle to liberation) and of the cognitive obscurations (which obstruct omniscience). Therefore, those who wish swiftly to rid themselves of these two obscuring veils and thus attain omniscience should by all means meditate on emptiness."
(Nectar of Manjushri's Speech, p 345)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This latter statement of yours is false, the latter does not preclude the former.

Astus wrote:
Still, it made it possible and became the mainstream.

Malcolm said:
All obscurations are not removed merely through lacking attachment to appearances.

Astus wrote:
What obscuration is left without attachment?

Malcolm said:
Different people heard different things.

Astus wrote:
What different people? Numerous Mahayana sutras have the same disciples as the Agamas.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
He never equates the attainment of arhatship with total awakening.

Astus wrote:
Thus the requirement of a bodhisattva accumulating merit on a grand scale over aeons. But then it's been overwritten by the inherent buddha-nature whereby anyone can reach buddhahood in a single lifetime. And how can the full function of buddha-nature manifest? By not being attached to appearances, thus removing all obscurations. However, since arhats are also without clinging to appearances, their buddha-nature should manifest in the same way.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point actually is that if there is no Mahāyāna there could not be a Theravada or any other Hināyāna school because there would be no Buddha to teach śrāvakas the arhat path.

Astus wrote:
How is that the point? Theravada has its own version of the bodhisattva path, and in Mahayana there are several versions.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Adamantine said:
We are discussing people who have all mutually taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Followers of Shakyamuni Buddha. So your seeming parallel is a non sequitur.

Astus wrote:
It would be possible to point out that Mahayana has a different interpretation of all three of the treasures, so while on the surface they sound the same, they don't mean the same, just like Buddha is the ninth incarnation of God for Vaisnavas. And even if they are the same, it still seems illogical to give any "benefit of doubt", as that would also mean doubting one's own tradition.

Adamantine said:
However Mahayana sutras are addressed to those embarking on the Bodhisattva path, they're not intended to make sravakas feel bad about themselves. As I already said, these types of things are contextual teaching devices, not proclamations to be heralded on billboards or in a Theravadan forum.

Astus wrote:
Vimalakirti sutra, ch 3 is a good example of making sravakas feel bad. But if such instances are teaching devices, then there is no discussion of any Hinayana school, only a number of misinterpretations that do not represent any actual doctrine and discipline, therefore it not only has nothing to do with Theravada, but it's not relevant to the Agama scriptures either. Personally, I am sympathetic to that interpretation of the Mahayana supremacist rhetoric, but so far it has not really surfaced in this thread as an option.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Adamantine said:
And since a Theravadan is not likely to practice in Mahayana for a number of years to test it, the best attitude is one of giving "the benefit of the doubt". "Perhaps it is a faster, more efficacious path, but it may not be right for me, for my own karmic makeup and mindstream at this time. Because of that, the Theravada is supreme for me and others like me."



Astus wrote:
How is that the best attitude? Would you apply that to Buddhists who are told that Vedanta is a superior path?

Adamantine said:
So for followers of Shakyamuni Buddha, it is never a good idea to quarrel between traditions.

Astus wrote:
Isn't it in Mahayana sutras where one can find all sorts of arguments against sravakas?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Both Theravada and Mahayana aim for no attachment to the five aggregates and six senses, thus one is unbound. According to Theravada after parinirvana there is nothing to say, since even before that there is no individual to point to. Mahayana says that because of compassion bodhisattvas and buddhas do not leave samsara, nor do they enter nirvana, but because they have realised the emptiness of appearances they can function without being affected. So actually both affirm that there is no individual entity to be bound.

As we can see, they can accuse each other with wrong views: Hinayana is annihilationist, Mahayana is eternalist. But as everyone is aware, the topic of the existence or non-existence of the Tathagata after death is a question based on the incorrect assumption of self.

"There is really no establishment of various vehicles, and so I speak of the one vehicle; but in order to carry the ignorant I talk of a variety of vehicles."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 2.56, tr Suzuki)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Inner tools and inspiration, whether from insight to visions to voices, are also notably subjective and subject to anything from misinterpretation to simple hallucination to full blown mental illness mistaken for a pipeline to  Jesus or the Buddha

Astus wrote:
That is a good example of common dismissal of subjective experiences. It is just like how foreign gods were demonised by preachers. However, as it is clear from various manuals for instance, Buddhists have been aware of all sorts of possible mistakes that can come from meditation. But as human beings we cannot avoid the subjective side - in a way, we can only be subjective. The extreme denial of personal, first hand experience is at the root of the difficulty some modern people have in fully understanding and appreciating Buddhism. Although that is not a universal phenomenon among today's men, only a certain segment bound by materialist/objectivist ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Another area which I believe is related to "How much should Buddhism Change" is the question "How much can Buddhism do without superstition?" That is certainly eye of the beholder, depending on such basic questions as what one considers "superstition". I personally advocate Buddhism abandoning much within it that is perhaps superstition and fallacy.

Astus wrote:
I consider that too extreme a view. It is undeniable that not only rebirth but also superpowers have always been very much elements of Buddhism. Seeing them as metaphors and superstitions is failing to understand what they meant to our ancestors and even to many contemporary practitioners. Instead of rejecting them out of cultural habit, there are two important areas where we can practise openness towards initially strange teachings. One is the anthropological and historical approach, considering the role of those teachings in the past. Second is the practical approach, in how we can actually make use of those elements of the path. I think both are possible, interesting and educational.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I may suggest that the best and clearest knowing comes when one drops all these categories and characterizations. Matter or not matter, inside or out ... what does it matter?

Astus wrote:
That's highly unlikely. In such a state of mind one cannot even tell one's left hand from the right. It is completely non-functional, i.e. useless. That's not wisdom, just apathetic blankness.

jundo cohen said:
Need we know all of it and what it is? Of course not! For example, one may not know all the sea, where it begins or ends and shape of every shoreline on which it crashes, its chemical makeup and the latin name of each species of coral ... yet thoroughly taste the salt of the sea right here. That saltiness is all the sea, all the shores in every briny grain. Understand? So it is with Mind.

Astus wrote:
Similarly, just by seeing that thoughts are not sights, sounds or anything tangible, one can know that it is not material, but at the same time subject to dependent origination.

jundo cohen said:
When the old Zen Masters asked such questions they did not wish a considered response.

Astus wrote:
Jinul was not the type of Zen teacher who liked to play word games. He is quite sensible, direct and scholarly in his works, unlike others influenced by Song era literary Chan.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: "Right" for Buddhism, or need the right Gate?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism is certainly not for everyone, otherwise everyone would be a Buddhist. But we see right in the story of the Buddha's enlightenment that only a few people can understand it.

"Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion.
What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow —
those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't see."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html )

As for Zen:

"Out of thousands and thousands of Dharma students in the Dhyana School, only three or five attain the fruit."
(Huangbo: "The Chung-Ling Record", tr Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I do not know know if the mind is material or not or something else all together (and neither do any modern neurologists, nor modern and ancient Buddhist teachers in my opinion). I really do not care all so much with regard to Liberation. It is simply not important to my Practice. We sit and embody "what is" ... whatever that "is" is ... even beyond and right through "is vs. is not".

Astus wrote:
I think the mind and its nature is the central topic of Zen, so it is particularly important to be clear about it, on both the theoretical and the experiential level. After all, it is not the body that needs liberation.

"Throughout the twenty-four hours of the day, you operate and act in all sorts of ways, seeing and hearing, laughing and talking, raging and rejoicing, affirming and denying: now tell me, ultimately who is it that can operate and act in this way?
If you say it is the physical body operating, they why is it that when people’s lives have just ended and their bodies have not yet decomposed at all, their eyes cannot see, their ears cannot hear, their noses cannot smell, their tongues cannot talk, their bodies do not move, their hands do not grip, their feet do not step? So we know that what can see, hear, and act must be your basic mind, not your physical body. "
(Jinul: Secrets of Cultivating the Mind, tr Cleary)

jundo cohen said:
However, I fail to see in any way why "unless you conceive an independent mind, i.e. a self - then the causal, dependent nature of mind means there is rebirth." I am glad that you see that.

Astus wrote:
The body dies and decomposes. If the mind is not a part nor a product of the body, then it does not die with it, but it follows its own causal continuum.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Anders said:
Bhikshu dharmamitra has also translated the Mohezhiguan in full
http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/ebm_book_page.htm

Astus wrote:
That is the Xiaozhiguan ( https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E5%8F%B0%E5%B0%8F%E6%AD%A2%E8%A6%B3 - Small Calming-Insight), written before the MHZG.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Malcolm said:
Why would we, as a Mahāyāna forum, wish to encourage a subforum where people can engage in the unmeritorious activity of criticizing Mahāyāna Dharma?

Astus wrote:
People have questions whether they can post it or not. They also have disagreements to various degrees. Since the sections for specific traditions are meant to accept and maintain the given school's tenets - that is, as I imagine it, in a discussion those are the sources that take primacy over other. Therefore, Open Dharma means that no source whatsoever have primacy. Although in a way that is a straight way to chaos and confusion, it could also mean a 'pure reason' arena, where only the very basics of perception and logic counts. Except that very few, if any, can uphold such argument rules. Still, we can try.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dear Jundo,

Do you consider mind to be material, or produced by/from matter? If not - unless you conceive an independent mind, i.e. a self - then the causal, dependent nature of mind means there is rebirth. That's how dependent origination is interlinked with rebirth and called the correct view. As for the kinds of births, the six realms include all sorts of possibilities, and there is a certain logic to it as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
SpinyNorman said:
I've been involved in previous debates around the definition of "Buddhist", and the most pragmatic and inclusive answer I remember was: "anyone who is doing some form of Buddhist practice."

Astus wrote:
Not really.

"Venerable sir, in what way is one a lay follower?"
"Mahanama, inasmuch as one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, has gone to the Sangha for refuge; in that way, Mahanama, one is a lay follower."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.025.kuma.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
So if we follow that logic the Mahayana should stop referring to itself as the Mahayana..after all it is not the Great Vehicle relative to something abstract. It is the great vehicle relative to less complete vehicles.

Astus wrote:
No "less complete vehicle" mentioned here...

PP8000 1.5 (tr Conze):

Subhuti: It is thus, O Lord, that a Bodhisattva, a great being is armed with the great armour, and becomes one who has set out in the great vehicle, who has mounted on the great vehicle. But what is that great vehicle? How should one know the one who has set out in it? From whence will it go forth and whither? Who has set out in it? Where will it stand? Who will go forth by means of this great vehicle?
The Lord: ‘Great vehicle,’ that is a synonym of immeasurableness. ‘Immeasurable’ means infinitude. By means of the perfections has a Bodhisattva set out in it. From the triple world it will go forth. It has set out to where there is no objective support. It will be a Bodhisattva, a great being who will go forth, -but he will not go forth to anywhere. Nor has anyone set out in it. It will not stand anywhere, but it will stand on all-knowledge, by way of taking its stand nowhere. [And finally], by means of this great vehicle no one goes forth, no one has gone forth, no one will go forth. [24] Because neither of these dharmas, - he who would go forth, and that by which he would go forth – exist, nor can they be got at all. Since all dharmas do not exist, what dharma could go forth by what dharma? It is thus, Subhuti, that a Bodhisattva, a great being, is armed with the great armour, and has mounted on the great vehicle.
Subhuti: The Lord speaks of the ‘great vehicle.’ Surpassing the world with its Gods, men and Asuras that vehicle will go forth. For it is the same as space, and exceedingly great. As in space, so in this vehicle there is room for immeasurable and incalculable beings. So is this the great vehicle of the Bodhisattvas, the great beings. One cannot see its coming, or going, and its abiding does not exist. Thus one cannot get at the beginning of this great vehicle, nor at its end, nor at its middle. But it is self-identical everywhere. Therefore one speaks of a ‘great vehicle.’


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 7:00 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
kirtu said:
Of course Arhats and Buddhas affect people after their own personal Parinirvana.  Go to any Theravadin temple (at least Thai and Cambodian, less Sri Lankan) and you will see pictures of Arhats and honored contemporary monks (who are not publicly acknowledged as Arhats).  They affect people by their example and the stories about them.

Astus wrote:
That's quite different from how buddhas and bodhisattvas stay in samsara actively liberating beings. At least theoretically. And that's one of my points actually, that Mahayana has a scriptural and philosophical system to integrate such devotional practices, while I have not met anything like that in the Nikayas or treatises. Or do you know such Theravada sources?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Queequeg said:
This is a mistaken gloss. This is the Separate/Special or Provisional Mahayana view I pointed out is wrong.

Astus wrote:
How so? Zhiyi does not seem to say anything contradictory, he only takes a different way in explaining it. As he is quoted:

"He comprehends that the realm of evil is itself the realm of actuality [i.e., the dharma-nature, the absolute], and thus can attain liberation even in the midst of the midst of the five unforgivable sins."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 5:24 PM
Title: Re: Engrossing thoughts
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
What then, given your post, might "life fogged over by thought" be?

Astus wrote:
That is taking experiences to be substantial, to be self or related to the self, to be important. It is like seeing a shadow and mistaking it for a snake - there is a shadow, but it can appear as something solid and threatening (or attractive), because we quickly associate the sight with an idea, and with that idea comes other thoughts and emotions. That is only an example, and as such can lead to the wrong concept that one should not make mistakes and have no fears whatsoever, but that would be the idea of "thoughts are bad, no thoughts are good".

Monlam Tharchin said:
For what there is to awaken from, the answer to me is suffering.

Astus wrote:
Suffering is the effect of delusion, not the cause. The cause is the belief that experiences (five aggregates & six senses) are enduring, satisfying, and controllable; or simply that they are substantial and one can and should do something with them. However, samsara cannot be fixed. The very idea that one has to fix life is the cause of the problems. That's why in zazen there is nothing to keep or let go. Waking up is only waking up from the delusion of anything to attain or be free from.

Monlam Tharchin said:
As such, there is the distinction between zazen and daydreaming or sleeping, as seemingly described in book I quoted, and no amount of thoughts linked together has yet undone that.

Astus wrote:
We are dependent origination itself. Dream is the whole of life. Looking for nirvana anywhere beyond is like adding another head.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Engrossing thoughts
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
It's this process of tangling/untangling in sensory phenomena that I'm asking about, just what is going on, and whether examining it in this way is helpful or not, in posters' opinions.

Astus wrote:
When there is a concept/feeling of what is correct meditation, in order to maintain that state takes practice and effort, and even then it is eventually lost. That idea of correctness occurs right when one thinks that there is a point where meditation begins. It becomes a unique activity. On the other hand, when one just sits around, like waiting on the corridor for someone, or sitting down on a bench to rest one's legs, at those times the mind is aware and calm without effort. True, after a few moments one can feel bored, or one automatically grabs something to serve as a distraction. But just before beginning to fiddle with something, it is nothing special. Is that what you would call an untangled mind? And then, out of habit, an impulse, one begins to take up something to play with. Is that what you call tangled? And right in that distinction of labelling tangled bad and untangled good the idea is established that one should be in one way but not another. In that way it is no different from any calming meditation technique where one has to return again and again to the object. In fact, it is probably just that. However, when ideas of good and bad mind states are put aside, what is there to awake from?

Consider these classic stories:

Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” To which Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.” Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma then said, “There, I have pacified your mind.”

Daoxin said, “I ask for the master’s compassion. Please tell me of the gate of emancipation.” Sengcan said, “Who has bound you?” Daoxin said, “No one has bound me.” Sengcan said, “Then why are you seeking emancipation?”


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Theravada aims for arhat status, says that arhats and buddhas do not affect beings after parinirvana.

Mahayana aims for buddha satus, says that bodhisattvas and buddhas affect beings after parinirvana. And then it is further explained how that affecting occurs naturally from their vows, that the ultimate buddha dharmakaya is totally impersonal and ungraspable, plus all that beings can perceive are what their karma lets them to. So, the deity-like bodhisattvas and buddhas are eventually explained as very abstract ideas and inconceivable beings, very much like the nirvana of Theravada.
What happens is that Mahayana transformed devotional elements from non-Budhdist to Buddhist, so instead of some general mother-goddess people can instead pray to Guanyin, but when you go deeper you are taught how Guanyin is about practising and manifesting compassion, and so on. And in that fairly tangible sense Mahayana is more encompassing, as it embraces and transforms various religious elements, plus the teachings are often more flexible to a certain extent, following the idea of skilful means. So, if anything, then those aspects show how Mahayana is the Broad Vehicle.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 4:26 PM
Title: Re: Engrossing thoughts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thoughts are what we think. If you want to stay outside of thoughts, that means two thoughts. It also means you have an idea of what kind of a mental state is desirable while others are not. Thoughts exhaust themselves whether one wants it or not. Thoughts pop up whether one wants it or not. Trouble occurs whenever we think that one thought is good and another thought is bad. So the instruction says: "Don't think of good and evil."

What exactly is happening when we become lost in thought or emotion?

See for yourself what it's like to intentionally think through something, and what it's like when the process ends. What do you call lost then?

Why, given the thousands of times daydreams have vanished before my eyes, I don't seem to learn from the process or see through them more readily as time goes on?

You seem to have learnt that they vanish. What more do you expect?

And why can we notice some perceptions without becoming engrossed, yet others are engrossing? Thoughts pull me in often, yet sounds or touch rarely do. They're more scenery, while thoughts steal the show.

That sounds more like your own arbitrary criteria. How is it different to think of the wall and see the wall? They are both complete unstable experiences.

Does it even matter in terms of aiming our practice?

The practice is to see that there is no thought, emotion or any experience at all that one can grasp, rely on, and identify with. All of them inevitably and unstoppably come and go. To imagine that there is some state or position one can maintain or should cultivate is the wrong idea.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
So there is some self existent aspect to deluded beings?

Astus wrote:
Delusion is not caused by wisdom, nor is wisdom caused by delusion. Rather, the end of delusion is when wisdom can occur.

Queequeg said:
Are you actually familiar with Zhiyi or is this your opinion? I'm not positing him as authority, but I think if you actually understood the argument you wouldn't flatly reject it like this.

Astus wrote:
As I understand it, the three truths of Tiantai is emptiness, appearance, and middle, meaning that things are inseparably empty and apparent. What does that reject flatly?

Queequeg said:
Zhiyi doesn't actually reject anything as untrue. Rather he teaches something of a radical contextuality. The teaching is actually a way to integrate all truth, Buddhist and non-Buddhist, into a single, encompassing system.

Astus wrote:
Can you show where he integrates non-Buddhist teachings, like a creator god and annihilation at death?

Queequeg said:
Of course you can be attached and unattached simultaneously. We all in fact are this way. I'm attached to my son at the level of my gross consciousness. At the consciousness level of my involuntary biological functions, I am not attached.

Astus wrote:
Attachment is a present mental attitude, actively grasping at an object. So to have both at the same time would mean loving and disregarding your son at the same time with the same mind.

Queequeg said:
Everything is defined by intension, right? So if an act is done for dharma, its Buddhist.

Astus wrote:
That would mean only a buddha's activity is Buddhist, as only he has pure intentions fully in accord with the Dharma.

Queequeg said:
Once aroused, bodhicitta never dissolves. And moreover, its intrinsic in the true aspect so what you are talking about is a rather shallow and gross level arousal. It could equally be said the arousal of bodhicitta at the gross level us nothing more than recognition of an intent that has been there all along. Losing intent at the gross level is just that - loss at that gross level where the construct "I" is found.

Astus wrote:
If bodhicitta were never lost why are there warnings against abandoning it in the sutras?

What are the gross and subtle minds? There are the inclinations present as latent conditioning, i.e. samskaras. Those are the basis of all afflictions and samsara. What else do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
pael said:
Why Vimalakirti Sutra says ''by the equality of the five deadly sins, you reach the equality of liberation''?
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm
Are those sins empty?

Astus wrote:
The Sutra itself explains:

Lord, when I heard these words of the Licchavi Vimalakirti, I wondered what I should say and what I should do, but I was totally in the dark. Leaving the bowl, I was about to leave the house when the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to me, 'Reverend Subhuti, do not fear these words, and pick up your bowl. What do you think, reverend Subhuti? If it were an incarnation created by the Tathagata who spoke thus to you, would you be afraid?'
I answered, 'No indeed, noble sir!' He then said, 'Reverend Subhuti, the nature of all things is like illusion, like a magical incarnation. So you should not fear them. Why? All words also have that nature, and thus the wise are not attached to words, nor do they fear them. Why? All language does not ultimately exist, except as liberation. The nature of all things is liberation.'


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
What are Buddhas without ordinary beings? What is to distinguish the category "deluded being"  without "enlightened being"?

Astus wrote:
For categorisation they are set up as opposites. Still, deluded beings are deluded regardless of the presence or absence of buddhas, and buddhas are enlightened regardless the presence or absence of deluded ones.

Queequeg said:
truth is infinitely refined; each refinement redefines the distinction between true and not true.

Astus wrote:
Something is either true or false within a given context, and without context there is no truth or falsity to talk about either. When a system of categorisation of teachings is set up, that system itself defines what is true and what is false. It's not that truth becomes more sublime, but rather it systematically rejects everything else but their own proposition of truth.

Queequeg said:
The best I can approximate my view of them is the connection between the wave and particle natures of light; they're the same thing, at the same time, of utterly exclusive characters. To be more specific and accurate, I'm referring to Zhiyi's Threefold Inclusive Truth - distinct from the various Two Truth formulations as well as Non-Inclusive Threefold Truth formulations.

Astus wrote:
The difference between delusion and enlightenment is attachment or lack of it to phenomena. The phenomena are the same, the relation to them is different. Since it cannot be that one is attached and not attached at the same time, ignorance and wisdom do not exist simultaneously. What the Three Truths mean is that emptiness is not the absence of appearances but the realisation of dependent appearances being insubstantial just as they are.

Queequeg said:
Being too hungry to contemplate dharma is a Buddhist problem with a Buddhist resolution - even as that resolution may seem very similar to the efforts of a preta to quench hunger. The circumstances are different, the end is different. Foraging for food and water is a Buddhist activity because it supports Buddhist endeavor. Consider the difference between a monks alms round and a beggar's begging round.

Astus wrote:
What makes it Buddhist? It's not that the activity is particular to Buddhists, but because it is also performed by Buddhists. I don't see how that definition is important or relevant here.

Queequeg said:
Its the principle underlying Samaya or the Direct Introduction of our Dzogchen cousins, as I understand it. I understand it as adhimukti, awareness that precedes understanding. Without being introduced to the Buddha Mind, it is not possible to penetrate it. This means the Buddha's teaching always precedes awakening. The standard example is a description of Chocolate Cake (Enlightenment) is not comparable to actually eating Chocolate Cake. In Eating it, you actually get to experience and come to an intimate understanding of Chocolate Cake that replaces any speculative notion about Chocolate Cake. On initiation, on introduction, you enter into the respective enlightened consciousness. You may not understand it fully, but now that you are in, (now that you have actually taken a bite) its just a matter of becoming thoroughly familiar with it. Perfecting paramitas, if one wishes to structure one's practice that way, happens within this context of the Buddha's Mind. The goal of achieving the Buddha Mind is complete. That does not mean it cannot be perfected further, and there are myriad practices to do this, which, if we really get it, we do just because.

Astus wrote:
Bodhicitta is the intention to attain complete enlightenment. If that intention ceases before reaching the goal, that is falling from the path, but when the intention arises one steps on the path. Bodhicitta does not require the realisation of emptiness, so there are stages before becoming a noble or sage (i.e. reaching the first bhumi). Also, neither empowerment nor the theory of buddha-mind is required for aspiring to buddhahood. But when one experiences personally the true nature of the world, that is when one attains nobility. What is experienced is no different from what buddhas know as the real truth, the difference between a practising noble and one fully awakened lies in the remaining habits binding one to various phenomena. Practising could as well be called familiarisation with suchness, but it still does not mean the coexistence of ignorance and wisdom.

Queequeg said:
And, since Buddhas have appeared (if you believe it), that categorically means this reality is fully embraced in the Buddha Mind, and we're already, as we are, been embraced within it, and all of our "problems" are likewise embraced in it; all of our thoughts, words and deeds transpire in it, are it.

Astus wrote:
Buddha-mind is not a god or being to embrace anything. It is, as its name suggests, the mind of a buddha, one that is completely liberated. In the sense that a free mind is free because of realising suchness, and suchness is the nature of all phenomena, everything is free, that is, buddha-mind. But that does not help anyone or anything, since all beings must realise this for themselves.

Queequeg said:
OK, Sure, but now we're back to you determining what problems Buddhism can address.
There is nothing outside the scope of Buddhism, and that problems beyond the one's you posit are embraced in that scope even if they are not enumerated in the scriptures. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Astus wrote:
In a similar sense, there is nothing outside the scope of biology either, as we are all biological entities. Still, you wouldn't look for financial advice in an anatomy book. Therefore it is only misleading to say that there is nothing outside the scope of Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
So, if I understand all of this right... this means that when a given desire arises, we simply recognize that it is a part of ourselves and if its effects are constructive, we act on it, but if not, we recognize its emptiness and let it go or sublimate it?

Astus wrote:
Afflictions are unwholesome mental phenomena based on greed, hatred, and ignorance. Realising that they are enlightenment means insight into their nature as empty, thus ending the mistaken impulse of grasping and acting on them.

The differentiation between wholesome and unwholesome intentions is the practice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions, a part of the noble eightfold path and the thirty-seven factors conducive to enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: The "four methods" that prove the existence of future li
Content:
prsvrnc said:
How would you distinguish, "the logic that the mind has gained familiarity with things in the past" and "the logic of having gained experience of things in the past"?

Astus wrote:
No idea. Finding that out would require more information.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: The "four methods" that prove the existence of future li
Content:
Astus wrote:
Those four reasons are likely to be found in pramana works. The second half of the reasons - and I'm just guessing here based on other sources - are about how a newborn baby can eat and other basic things of growing up (e.g. language acquisition) from what one could assume previous knowledge, practically what is now called instincts and explained by biology.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Vasana said:
That's not the same as accepting it blindly on faith. ... your exmaple is more akin to trust in the testimony of reliable persons ,witness's & masters such as HHDL.

Astus wrote:
That is actually what accepting on faith is: trusting in what others say without gaining an understanding on one's own.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Punya said:
And, if you accept the advice of teachers like HH the Dalai Lama about the complexity of karma, and you content yourself with a more basic understanding, is that just accepting it on faith. (There are more than enough threads here on karma so please confine the discussion to the faith aspect).
I'd still be interested in responses to this part of the question.

Astus wrote:
It's fine to just accept it on faith: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
Are ordinary people categorically devoid of wisdom? This amounts to a denial of Buddhanature, and is an inferior teaching. My understanding is that nescience and wisdom lie at the ends of an infinite spectrum in dynamic tension. Where is there wisdom without nescience, and vice versa? Wisdom can only be distinguished in relation to nescience, and the other way around. How do you separate them?

Astus wrote:
If ordinary people had wisdom there would not be ordinary any more. Buddha-nature is not relevant at all, because for ordinary people it is completely hidden and cannot make any use of it.

As you say, since recognising ignorance is needed to posit knowledge, ordinary people are similarly the opposite of noble ones. But that doesn't mean that buddhas cannot exist without deluded beings, or that deluded beings cannot be without nobles, since only the terminology is dependent on each other, not the beings.

Queequeg said:
This dynamic interaction between wisdom and nescience is complete and any attempt to draw distinctions between wisdom and nescience is groundless except to illustrate a rather inferior point for people who still posit dualities.

Astus wrote:
There is no such coexistence. One cannot be literate and illiterate at the same time. Wisdom is not in any dynamic relation with ignorance.

Queequeg said:
The interaction between Bodhisattvas and ordinary people takes place in what we ordinary people call ordinary life. For the Bodhisattva, that interaction takes place in the Buddhafield. Both of these views are correct because ordinary life and the buddha field are the same thing.

Astus wrote:
If they were the same there would be either just one or the other.

Queequeg said:
Once you've been exposed to the Buddha dharma, to the Buddha's Mind (which has always already been accomplished), you are embraced in the Buddha's Mind - ie. nescience and wisdom perfectly complement, and all of your activities are activities on the Buddhist path that inevitably blossoms into full blown Buddhahood, even as you consciously have no inkling while you shovel poop in the Rich Man's latrines.

Astus wrote:
That denies any conscious effort of perfecting the paramitas, accumulating merit and wisdom, etc. All that would be required were to take refuge and nothing else. Thus it negates the entire path. In other words, it claims that it's enough to believe that problems will be solved, and that belief itself is the end of every attempt, or even consideration of handling anything.

Queequeg said:
Where exactly is the Buddha path tread? Where are the problems solved with Buddhist solutions? Where is Wisdom cultivated? In the Mind? Where is Mind abstracted from Form and the perpetual activity of life? What lies outside of the Budhha's Mind?

Astus wrote:
Phenomena are not the problem, attachment to them is. Just because one does not have to go/be outside of phenomena doesn't mean that the solution is found within appearances, or that all will sort out themselves automatically.

Queequeg said:
They were never afflictions in the first place. Your position seems to be that Buddhism only solves misperception, as if that solution can be abstracted from all the other solutions to life's problems.

Astus wrote:
If afflictions are not afflictions, then there is nothing to do, no teachings to follow, and no liberation to gain. That again negates the whole path.

Misperception of how things are is the cause of afflictions, so that is what needs to be corrected. Does that help with every possible problem in the world? If yes, in what way? Those are the questions I have originally intended to discuss here.

Queequeg said:
Jeff makes an excellent point - another way to illustrate the full scope of Buddhism and Buddhist problem solving is to point out that wisdom implies compassion (action based on wisdom), and wisdom without action is not really wisdom at all.

Astus wrote:
I agree, they are very much connected. Action comes from intention, intention comes from perception/view. Correct view then also means correct intention and correct action.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Jeff H said:
I think this discussion is missing the teaching on wisdom with compassion. All Buddhist methods invoke wisdom, but none lead to inaction. That’s because of compassion.

Astus wrote:
Compassion is the intention to solve others' problems. Do you also consider it to be a method of alleviating their suffering, or is it just the willingness to do that?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
SeeLion said:
Concentration is a state of being, which can be cultivated during the daily life.

Astus wrote:
What do you call concentration, what method/technique/practice? What does one do to be concentrated? As I understand it, it is one-pointed attention to a single object where one disregards, or does not recognise at all, every other phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
I'm assuming this is a relic of Bramhanic ideas of orthodox purity

Astus wrote:
The whole idea of 'contamination' seems like that. But it is quite possible that there is no actual connection, it's just that every culture has its own set of superstitions and taboos (e.g. in Japan women were not allowed on whole mountains because of fear of contaminating the holy places, like monasteries).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Malcolm said:
These are more connected with the Tibetan cultural ideas than the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
East Asian countries have their own versions of such contaminations (e.g. the http://www.reed.edu/hellscrolls/scrolls/Aseries/A06/A06e.html ), as probably every culture.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Malcolm said:
Here, the word is contamination [ 'grib ] rather than obscuration [ sgrib ].

Astus wrote:
And what does contamination stand for? The description given sounds like 'ritual impurity', that might be relevant in Tantra.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
how the commentators distinguished the Buddha's purported words here from his own Teachings on rebirth?

Astus wrote:
Speculations about the future involve wrong views of immortality (percipient, non-percipient, neither) or annihilation. The Buddha, of course, avoids both extremes, as he does not posit an immutable self, nor complete destruction, but dependent origination. There are several suttas on the topic of kamma and rebirth (e.g. MN 41, 57, 101, 135, 136), and it is clear from the Buddha's debates with various ascetics, as described in the sutta right after the Brahmajala (i.e. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html ), that the interpretation of kamma and rebirth is very much a central doctrine that makes Buddhism unique, and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama%C3%B1%C3%B1aphala_Sutta#The_king.27s_questioning_of_six_ascetics represent views that are still held by various people today.

As for DN 1, here are some commentaries: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books11/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Discourse-All-Embracing_Net_of_Views.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
from a Tibetan perspective there is also a view that one can take on residual obscurations (drip) from another, most especially through sexual union.

Astus wrote:
That very much contradicts the whole meaning of karma. Following that logic, hunger could be lost around well fed people. Afflictions reside in one's own mind, generated and maintained through one's own actions. One may agree with or imitate others' actions, but that's still not the same as obscuration-transmission.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
SeeLion said:
I think Right Concentration is a method, because the problem never arises in the first place.

Astus wrote:
Concentration is a very useful method to calm down. However, it is more like not facing the problem but putting it aside for a while.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
There are many examples of practitioners whose daily activities are their practice - Vimalakirti for one. The integration is implicit in the bodhisattva ideal.

Astus wrote:
What makes everyday activities practice is the presence of wisdom. Thus for ordinary people activities are karmic, for bodhisattvas they are the path to buddhahood. Therefore, it's not the activity but the wisdom that makes it Buddhist.

Queequeg said:
There is indeed the teaching on klesa are bodhi... It goes hand in hand with Nirvana is Samsara.

Astus wrote:
Again, that is a matter of having or not having insight into the reality of afflictions. And once afflictions are seen for what they actually are, they are no longer afflictions.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Punya said:
It seems to me like they are generally talking about faith in the trust and confidence sense.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's the point of faith, to trust in the teachings, and therefore keep studying until one arrives to actual confirmation. It is like faith in any other kind of instructor, for instance when one learns a foreign language you accept that the teacher knows what he talks about and explains things correctly.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. Rebirth is not really the problematic point, rather it is seeing the mind as a bodily function. Those who come to Buddhism with some concept of an independent soul have no problem with rebirth in particular, they rather fall into the other extreme view of eternalism.

2. The mind as a separate function from the body can be directly perceived and understood using the experiential-phenomenological (five aggregates, six sensory areas) model.

3. In the teaching on the five levels of Zen the first one is the kind of therapeutic, present life centred view embraced by agnostic/materialist beginners. So, it has its value, but it is certainly very far from the fifth level of the ultimate vehicle that is the teaching of Bodhidharma and his heirs.

4. Mahayana makes zero sense without rebirth, as the bodhisattva path goes through innumerable lifetimes.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Astus wrote:
That afflictions (klesa) are enlightenment (bodhi) (煩惱即菩提) is the same idea as samsara is nirvana, the commons (prthagjana) are nobles (arya), etc. It means that one has to realise that afflictions are empty and such, instead of trying to suppress them or remove them. It is a teaching meant to correct the view that one should use force instead of wisdom. This teaching is in a number of Mahayana sutras (e.g. Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 4: "The afflictions are bodhi [煩惱是道場], because of understanding according to actuality." (BDK Edition, p 100)), and an expression used in Chan as well.

"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)

"Space and the Dharma body are without any dissimilar characteristics (lit., “characteristics of differentiation”). The Buddhas and sentient beings are without any dissimilar characteristics, samsara and nirvana are without any dissimilar characteristics, and the afflictions and bodhi are without any dissimilar characteristics.
To transcend all characteristics is to be a Buddha. Ordinary people grasp at [their sensory] realms, while religious persons grasp at the mind. For the mind and the realms to both be forgotten is the True Dharma. To forget the realms is relatively easy, but to forget the mind is extremely di‡cult. People do not dare to forget the mind, fearing that they will fall into the void (i.e., the emptiness of space) with nowhere to grab hold. They do not understand that the void is without void, that there is only one true Dharma body."
(Huangbo, in Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 21)

"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.”"
(Weijue: http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

"If you know how to use it, affliction is Bodhi; if you don't know how to use it, then Bodhi becomes affliction. Bodhi is analogous to water, and affliction to ice. Ice and water are of the same substance; there is no difference."
(Xuanhua: http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading_simplified/dharma_talks/kaishrlu-7/volume7-ce-25.htm )

"In Buddhism we say, “Affliction is Bodhi (enlightenment).” This means that when we encounter afflictions (distressful circumstances), we must use wisdom to perceive and understand them clearly, turning the afflictive outlook into joy, freedom, and tranquility. “Affliction” and “joy” are, in reality, within one single thought."
(Weijue: http://cthouston.org/Dharma%20Lectures%20by%20the%20Grand%20Master/Words%20of%20Wisdom%20from%20the%20Grand%20Master%20.pdf )

"The mental formation is not our enemy. It is ourself and it is our duty to look after it. Many people think that meditation is a war, a struggle between good and bad, between the Buddha and Mara. But in the light of interbeing, rubbish makes flowers and flowers make rubbish. There is affliction and there is bodhi. Bodhi is not the enemy of affliction. Affliction is not the enemy of bodhi. If we don’t know how to look after our awakened nature it will become affliction. If we know how to look after our afflictions they will become awakened nature. That is what is meant by saying afflictions are the bodhi nature, are awakened nature."
(Thich Nhat Hanh: http://www.buddhist-canon.com/PLAIN/TNHSUTTA/1998%20Feb%2022%20%20The%20Four%20Establishments%20of%20Mindfulness%20%28part%202%29.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
The tradition I follow embraces the full scope of human experience and interexperience - I don't think its exclusive in this embrace, but is idiosyncratic. This scope of course includes disciplines such as maths and sciences, as well as every other conventional truth and circumstance; of course it incidentally embraces Boda's suggestion of the scientific method as a means of problem solving. We can be theoretical physicists and Buddhists and have both hats be the same.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism can exist besides all sorts of other skills, that does not make shoemaking and calculus parts of the Buddhist tradition. What does such embracing mean then?

Queequeg said:
All of these are problems that must be addressed, and if your interpretation of Buddhism does not address them, it is not a complete teaching.

Astus wrote:
How many teachings do you know from the Buddha on agriculture, waste management and other common matters of society?

Queequeg said:
But even the Tripitaka embraces the conventional world - what is right livelihood if not addressing the right way to engage in the world?

Astus wrote:
The recommended livelihood is the celibate monastic life, even in Mahayana. I have not yet encountered a sutra or treatise advising people to enjoy the five desires (五欲) and be driven by the eight winds (八風).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Faith is accepting without understanding.

From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.001.than.html:

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower"
vs
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower"

Faith in the Triple Jewel is the first and foremost ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.001.than.html ) of all objects of faith. Then it is followed by faith in particular teachings, like in SN 25.1 the faith in the impermanence of the six senses.

The treatise http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html is a seminal text in East Asian Buddhism. It writes:

"Now, in developing the aspiration for enlightenment through the perfection of faith, what kind of mind is to be cultivated? Briefly speaking, three kinds can be discussed. The first is the mind characterized by straightforwardness, for it correctly meditates on the principle of Suchness. The second is the mind of profoundness, for there is no limit to its joyful accumulation of all kinds of goodness. The third is the mind filled with great compassion, for it wishes to uproot the sufferings of all sentient beings."

That fits the idea, articulated extensively in Huayan doctrine, that the first moment of faith (it is also the first section of the bodhisattva path in the Huayan - and therefore the East Asian - system) is equal to buddhahood. Sung Bae Park wrote a book on faith in East Asian Buddhism, particularly in Patriarchal Chan: https://books.google.com/books?id=_A2QS03MP5EC.

The Bodhisattva who has observed this foremost perfection,
When in the past he served [the Buddhas], is learned and does not doubt:
As soon as he has heard it he will again recognize the Teacher,
And he will swiftly understand the Peaceful Calm of enlightenment.

Though in the past he has honoured millions of Buddhas, and served them
If without faith in the Jina’s perfection of wisdom,
Hearing of it, he will cast it away, one of small intelligence;
After he cast it away, he will go to the Avici Hell, and non one can save him.

Therefore, have faith in this Mother of all the Jinas,
If you wish to experience the utmost Buddha-cognition:
Let him be like a merchant, who has traveled to the treasure island,
And who, having lost his goods would [nevertheless] again return [to it].
(Ratnagunasamcayagatha, ch 7, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Queequeg said:
I think you need to specify what you mean by "problem".

Astus wrote:
It is intentionally vague, the focus is on methods. So we can go with "A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome".

Queequeg said:
Is there a Buddhist physics or mathematics?

Astus wrote:
Probably not, so there are no methods for those, and that's fine.

Queequeg said:
Realizing the emptiness of my hunger will not solve the problem of my starvation.

Astus wrote:
At what point does one need Buddhism to solve hunger?

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

Queequeg said:
The larger point I was making, the 'Buddhist' problem solving described above has a discrete scope and if applied beyond that scope, it is absurd.

Astus wrote:
That is very true, and the Buddha was quite clear on that as well: "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html, also the famous http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html ).

At the same time, even if we were to restrict it to duhkha, one of its definitions is "not getting what is wanted", and that befits the general idea of what any problem is. Still, the question is about possible methods offered. As for whether it is good for a particular problem is another question.

Queequeg said:
I would posit that Buddhist problem solving is action flowing from wisdom

Astus wrote:
What kind of wisdom? And again, the method could as well be called the path to wisdom, but that definition would likely take us to a different discussion.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
boda said:
1) Define the problem.
2) Brainstorming and lateral thinking.
3) Forming a hypotheses.
4) Testing.

Astus wrote:
Where is that found in Buddhism?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Solving Problems the Buddhist Way
Content:
Astus wrote:
The basic method:

There is a problem because you crave (for something else). In order to stop craving realise that all experiences are unstable, unsatisfactory, and impersonal. That is, no matter what you crave for, it will not be a solution, thus craving is pointless.

The empty method:

No problem is a real problem. It only looks real because you don't recognise it as a mere concept. To see it as a mere concept, analyse the problem in order to define it, then you shall see that it cannot be established in any way.

The mind method:

The problem comes from imagining it to be something beyond what is experienced, an independent object. Since only what is experienced can be called a problem, the problem itself is nothing but a thought. Once there is nothing to think of, thinking of the problem itself ends.

The direct method:

The thought of problem occurs, then it disappears. No need to do anything. It had been gone even before it had arrived.

What other methods are there?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are two kinds of transmissions: scriptural and experiential. Scriptural is necessary for the tradition to live on, and it is generally easier to pass on, as monasteries can store the canon without anyone reading them. Experiential transmission is of two kinds: customs of the community and the individual realisations of the person. Customs are what anyone joining a community has to follow, both in terms of behaviour and theory. Customs are what is usually the "living tradition", and it is like any tradition in both carrying on old elements and integrating/developing new ones. The individual realisation is not something that can actually be transmitted, but often that's what the upholders of scriptures and customs claim to pass on. It's the realisation that is both the true goal of both kinds of transmissions and what keeps them truly alive.

Scriptural change happens through translation and interpretation, as both depend on one's present circumstances. Customs as well change according to upcoming situations and conditions. What cannot change is realisation. But as realisation does not just happen, there is necessarily a path, and thus we arrive at the four noble truths as the ultimate template. There are three suttas where the Buddha states: "cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara, or God or anyone at all in the cosmos": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html. They teach and explain the four noble truths and the eightfold path. And what is realised is the very nature of phenomena ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html ).

Other teachings beyond those can even be seen as elaborations and extensions, and at the same time all teachings can be traced back to the noble truths. Therefore that's what cannot be changed.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Do you need to know what a mantra means, to get benefits
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see all that in much simpler and ordinary terms. There are experiences in the six sensory areas. Either one imagines them to be personal and permanent or not, thus forming attachment or not. Attachments bring about dissatisfaction, and the whole cycle of rebirth. Not being attached frees one from dissatisfaction and the rest. The goal of any method is to help one see experiences for what they are and therefore relinquish clinging. This, as I understand, is what the Buddha's teachings are basically about, and so the teachings of Zen patriarchs and others.

Mantra practically is a set of syllables and used for practice in the form of recitation. Sure, there can be a complete philosophy behind that, but that still does not change the activity. Or it does. That is actually what the original question is about in this topic. So, since recitation is at best a way of concentrating on an object, it does not generate in and of itself wisdom.

It is possible you understand something completely different as mantra. In that case, it is not a practice of repeating syllables and such, so the above may not necessarily apply. However, that's not what was asked about in this thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: Do you need to know what a mantra means, to get benefits
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Since mantra is primordial, the primordial sound of Mind, there is no such thing as wiping away mantra. It is prior to wiping, and of the same nature as the Vajra Mirror.

Astus wrote:
All dharmas by their nature are no different from ultimate reality. In that sense, all sounds are mantra, from the chirp of birds to the vroom of motorcycles. Why would only certain syllables be special to be selected for practice?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Do you need to know what a mantra means, to get benefits
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
The quote from the platform sutra does not reference mantra. It does mention prajna. The Heart Sutra is very very clear as to the effects of the Prajnaparamita mantra, saying it is the mother of all Buddhas and leads to enlightenment, cutting through everything.

Astus wrote:
If saying only the words were enough, there is no point in bothering with the teachings. Zen teaches enlightenment by seeing the nature of mind. Mantras may be helpful as a possible method to tame the mind, but it's not the same as seeing the nature.

Reciting mantras or contemplating mind 
Are merely herbs for polishing a mirror. 
When the dust is removed, 
They are also wiped away.
(Hanshan Deqing: Contemplating Mind, in Getting the Buddha Mind, p 58)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 7:22 PM
Title: Re: Devotional Practices to Kannon in Zen
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
Is it permissible to have a statue of Kannon on one's altar?

Astus wrote:
Since Zen is not focused on a single buddha or bodhisattva, you can have whoever you like on the altar.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Do you need to know what a mantra means, to get benefits
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the Zen side:

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, p 28, BDK Edition)

Another student said, "I've heard that certain mantras have power inherent in them-that Sanskrit sounds, for example, have some link to the energy of the universe. Does it make a difference which mantra you use?" 
Soen-sa said, "Three things are important: first, your reason for doing the mantra; second, strong faith that the mantra works; and third, constant practice."
"So you can chant Coca-Cola all day long and it will work?"
"If someone tells you that the words Coca-Cola have power in them and you really believe that, then Coca-Cola will work for you.
(Seung Sahn: Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, p 82)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Devotional Practices to Kannon in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
All of East Asian Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C4%ABlaka%E1%B9%87%E1%B9%ADha_Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%AB

Chinese Buddhism:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=n86HQgAACAAJ

Japanese Zen (and in other schools):

http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/glossary/individual.html?key=ten_line_kannon_sutra

Kwan Um (and Korean) Zen:

http://www.kwanumzen.org/?teaching=kwan-seum-bosal-chanting
http://www.kwanumzen.org/?teaching=thousand-eyes-and-hands-sutra


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Happiness from Buddhism is impermanence
Content:
umesh said:
Did we get too attached to the teaching ?

Astus wrote:
That's not really possible. One may get stuck with some wrong views of the Dharma, but if it is the correct view, it inevitably brings one to liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Ethics are more important than religion?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Ethics do not exist in a vacuum, they are based on various views. Whether that view is religious or non-religious is a secondary matter, but there must be a set of ideas to have ethics. Since people with differing views do not agree, their ethics clash as well. How could there be then a universal ethics without a universal view? Sure, it seems that all could agree that violence is bad. But people do not attack each other because they argue about the importance of peace, rather they become violent over 'smaller' disagreements, like what marriage is, how people should be governed, which is the best sports team, etc. The same applies to other seemingly universal principles, like not stealing. So, while it may not necessarily be a religious one, but view is clearly more important than ethics.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
rory said:
Let's go back to the source - men. What should men do to prevent unwanted births?

Astus wrote:
As I understand the process, conception is generally the result of the activities of two consenting adults (not talking about criminal acts here). Blaming one or the other side is certainly not recognising the other person as a conscious agent. If there is such a thing as an 'unwanted birth', that means there were two people who had been ignorant of where babies came from.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Where is all this anger from against the idea that women are as much human beings as men? We are all humans, and biological sex does not define most, if not every, qualities of one's personality. How is this view so dangerous?

Female privilege is not something I have seen anywhere. Certainly, it can happen to some men that they feel frustrated because it looks like as if women had it easier in getting sex and securing relationships, that is actually nothing else but the misguided projection of one's own desires - i.e. as one feels like he'd be happy with any woman (as long as they fit one's ideals of course, so it's not at all 'free for all', but that's not acknowledged), while at the same time women don't seem to be willing to accept him, thus the female privilege. Actually, that kind of 'female privilege' is simple male chauvinism and blaming others for one's own frustration and the feeling of inferiority.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
LastLegend said:
I speak of suffering and end suffering by removing attachment to all.

Astus wrote:
There is also a fourth truth: the path. How to end attachments?

LastLegend said:
I speak of medicine and illness, and medicine in this case emptiness to remove attachment which is the illness that causes suffering.

Astus wrote:
How do you obtain and apply that medicine?

LastLegend said:
I also speak of the direct clear knowing mind. Where clear knowing mind is present, there is no delusion and confusion.

Astus wrote:
The question is the same: how do you realise a clear knowing mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Caodemarte said:
What exactly is meant by "the Zen claim to uniquenes?"  Was "sudden enlightenment" meant instead of "uniqueness?"

Astus wrote:
That Zen is a tradition on its own, separate from others like Tiantai, Huayan and Madhyamaka, and therefore having its own methods and doctrines, like sudden enlightenment through direct pointing to the nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Jesse said:
Direct just means you experience awakening directly through seeing(I believe), and gradual is experiencing it through the elimination of karma along with all the other Buddhist training's. Just because the path is gradual doesn't mean instantaneous enlightenment isn't instant, because in that moment there is nothing left to do. It's not one or the other, it's both.

Astus wrote:
That kind of direct insight is the requirement to become a stream-enterer or a bodhisattva on the first bhumi. Such insight developed and followed up by gradual training is what has always been the teaching. If Zen is also like that - which is possible - then it is basically contradicting its own claims of uniqueness.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
jundo cohen said:
You may have heard my own description of Practice-Realization as like a climb up a mountain, from the bottom to the top, changing vistas along the way, actually getting better and more skillful at climbing as we go, making progress step by step ... (seemingly gradual on first impression perhaps)

Astus wrote:
That is exactly the gradual path, where a bodhisattva has to realise emptiness/prajnaparamita and then, on the one hand, deepen it (implement it), and on the other, perfect himself in the other paramitas. But at the same time the wisdom of emptiness is the same, or in other words, the mirror needs cleaning even though the mirror is originally shiny as can be glimpsed at small spots whence the dirt's already been removed.

jundo cohen said:
All I might add is that, in a lovely Hua Yenny way, each sudden dot holds and intimately is every other sudden dot, every dot embodying all time and space and then some

Astus wrote:
It is a Huayan teaching, based on chapter 17 (Merit of the Initial Determination for Enlightenment), that at the first level (of 52) one already at the same time is equal to the buddhas. Tiantai has a similar teaching called the six identities. They basically say that one gradually accomplishes the full attainment/manifestation of buddha-nature that's found in all beings. Zen's sudden path is supposed to be instead the direct cut to buddha-nature itself rather than polishing the mirror.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 7:32 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Aemilius said:
The Lankavatara says that the Dhyanas of Sravakayana and Mahayana  are different, Chapter XXXVII in D.T. Suzuki. It is discussed in other sutras too, like Samdhi-Nirmocana.
Because the view is different the dhyanas differ accordingly.

Astus wrote:
From that section of the Lankavatara comes the term "Tathagata Chan", a name for Zen coming primarily from Guifeng Zongmi. It is the highest vehicle above both Hinayana and Mahayana that goes directly to buddha-nature.

"The Teaching of the One Vehicle That Reveals the Nature holds that all sentient beings without exception have the intrinsically enlightened, true mind. From [time] without beginning it is permanently abiding and immaculate. It is shining, unobscured, clear and bright ever- present awareness. It is also called the Buddha- nature and it is also called the tathāgatagarbha. From time without beginning deluded thoughts cover it, and [sentient beings] by themselves are not aware of it. Because they only recognize their inferior qualities, they become indulgently attached, enmeshed in karma, and experience the suffering of birth- and- death. The great enlightened one took pity upon them and taught that everything without exception is empty. He further revealed that the purity of the numinous enlightened true mind is wholly identical with all Buddhas."
( http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/zongmi.html#a )

"If one's practice is based on having all-at-once awakened to the realization that one's own mind is from the outset pure, that the depravities have never existed, that the nature of the wisdom without outflows is from the outset complete, that this mind is buddha, that they are ultimately without difference, then it is dhyana of the highest vehicle. This type is also known by such names as tathagata-purity dhyana, the one-practice concentration, and the thusness concentration. It is the basis of all concentrations. If one can practice it from moment to moment, one will naturally and gradually attain the myriad concentrations. This is precisely the dhyana that has been transmitted down from Bodhidharma."
(Chan Prolegomenon in "Zongmi on Chan", p 103)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I believe where I do not follow is the "either/or, yes/no" aspects of some of this conversation. Zen Teachers (especially the old dead ones) have a tendency to speak through both sides of their no sided mouth on these issues.

Astus wrote:
I don't see it as that complicated. Either it is a direct entrance or a gradual approach. That's because if the immediate is something that one needs to cultivate or repeat, that is already gradual. For instance, the concept of sudden enlightenment with gradual practice, that is virtually just the gradual path. If there is a step by step practice to follow that results in a sudden realisation, that is again a gradual path.

jundo cohen said:
yet he also (from all the little available historical evidence) engaged in Zazen and other standard Buddhist Practices and believed that there is much to be gained, and the possibility to enlighten. Same with Dogen.

Astus wrote:
It is likely that he followed some kind of monastic routine, but there is no historical evidence besides the heavily edited and reworked Linjilu. So, there is no basis to assume such a belief of Linji, when the text itself speaks directly against it. Nevertheless, the text is not a rulebook but a collection of sermons and some anecdotes, so it is not about organising monastic duties and such. At best such daily tasks are not about brining enlightenment but simply keeping the community functional. I also don't see Dogen saying that following rules can generate some attainment. In fact, such a concept is directly against some basic doctrines of Buddhism and constitutes the http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Silabbata-paramasa.

jundo cohen said:
Certainly, there is both a sudden and gradual aspect (as well as that which is beyond before and after and all time) to Zen Training including Dogen's way.

Astus wrote:
What are those aspects? Either something is practice-realisation or not. The gradual aspect is the view that through practice one gains realisation. That is in opposition to the doctrine of practice-realisation. What is your interpretation that harmonises them?

jundo cohen said:
Linji is quoted ... "Better take your ease sitting cross-legged on a meditation platform in the monastery."
Platform Sutra quoted ... "Be the same as you would if I were here, and sit all together in meditation."

Astus wrote:
Both refer to the simplest and most comfortable daily activity of a monastery: sitting together and not doing anything. It's as if the office manager told the employees to just go and sit in the relax room and don't do anything. Although meditation may have this reputation of being heavy work and tiring, that's likely because of viewing retreats and Japanese training monasteries as if they were the norm.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddha, true death and escape from reincanation.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Furthermore, the Tathagata wisely knows, for what they really are, the tendencies of countless beings to make positive and negative statements about objects. For he knows that all these ideas arise in dependence on form, and the other skandhas. How has he discerned the dependence on the skandhas of those positive and negative statements? If we take such statements as –‘The Tathagata continues to exist after death,’ ‘The Tathagata does not continue to exist after death,’ ‘The Tathagata does and does not continue to exist after death,’ ‘The Tathagata neither does nor does not continue to exist after death’ – then these statements refer to the skandhas only [and they have no basis in the true reality of the Tathagata]. The same holds good of similar statements, i.e. when one says: ‘Eternal are self and the world, -just that is the truth, everything else is delusion.’ And so if one maintains that self and the world are non-eternal, both eternal and non-eternal, neither eternal nor non-eternal. Or, similarly, if one maintains that self and the world are finite, or not finite, or both finite and not finite, or neither finite nor not finite. Or, finally, if one says ‘that which is the soul, that is the body,’ or ‘one thing is the soul, another the body,’ all these statements refer only to the skandhas. It is thanks to the perfection of wisdom that the Tathagata knows those positive and negative statements for what they really are. The Tathagata cognizes the skandhas as identical with Suchness. That is why He knows, thanks to perfect wisdom, those positive and negative statements for what they really are. It is thus that the Tathagata makes known Suchness through the Suchness of the Tathagata, through the Suchness of the skandhas, through the Suchness of positive and negative statements. And just that Suchness of the skandhas, that is also the Suchness of the world. For it has been said by the Tathagata that “the five skandhas are reckoned as the ‘world.’”

(PP8000 12.3, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
seeker242 said:
I guess what I meant to say is "Why does it matter?" Or "Does it really matter if we can find them or not? If so, why?"

Astus wrote:
First and foremost, there is a common trend to start explaining Zen by retracing the word's etymology. I consider that very misleading, but at the same time it fits the modern desire for meditation.

Secondarily, this is a way to look into what Zen is about. For instance: Are there specific meditative states to be achieved? Is pursuing such states even relevant or helpful? How should one approach Zen practice?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 6:59 AM
Title: Sexism and the Singer
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3364376/Hungary-cancels-Magyar-Telekom-contracts-sexism-row.html


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
In whose teachings can we find something on the dhyanas?

seeker242 said:
Does it really matter if we can find them or not?

Astus wrote:
Since the question is about the role of dhyanas in Zen, yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
BrianG said:
This is retarded.  Are you omniscient?

Astus wrote:
This is basic Zen.

"Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘There’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma. 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 defi ling passions and also nonactivity and passionlessness are ‘pure’ karma."
(Record of Linji, p 17, tr Sasaki)

"I say to you there is no buddha, no dharma, nothing to practice, nothing to enlighten to. Just what are you seeking in the highways and byways? Blind men! You’re putting a head on top of the one you already have. What do you yourselves lack? Followers of the Way, your own present activities do not diff er from those of the patriarch-buddhas. You just don’t believe this and keep on seeking outside. Make no mistake! Outside there is no dharma; inside, there is nothing to be obtained. Better than grasp at the words from my mouth, take it easy and do nothing. Don’t continue [thoughts] that have already arisen and don’t let those that haven’t yet arisen be aroused. Just this will be worth far more to you than a ten years’ pilgrimage."
(Record of Linji, p 22, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
jundo cohen said:
So, I do not feel your description is the final verdict which closes the case in all its aspects.

Astus wrote:
Dogen says in the http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html that "The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice.", where "meditation" stands for 習禪 (T82n2580p1b1), and http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/chi/word/144136/%E7%BF%92%E7%A6%AA to practise dhyana (禪那), i.e. calming (靜慮). The reason for it not being a meditation practice is given in the next sentence: "It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice-realization of totally culminated enlightenment." On the other hand, progression through the dhyanas is a method that has a number of preliminary requirements before and requires further training after in order to attain realisation.

What do you miss from the description (this one and the preceding one)?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shikantaza can't really be equivalent to any state of absorption, as what absorption means is calming down through the exclusion of various mental states. That is, within even the first level of absorption such emotions as lust and hatred cannot occur, that's why one has transcended the realm of sensuality (but not the realms of form and formlessness). Also, a state of absorption is conditioned and impermanent, and it does not include insight into the nature of reality.

As for similarity between shikantaza and absorption, maybe in some very limited aspects, but then there are similarities with numerous other activities as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Dan74 said:
Astus, I doubt that Shenxiu and Huineng are truly two different paths. Rather, I believe they are parts of the same training. The error many of us make, IMO, is becoming seduced by the nondual teachings, while our dualistic habits and deep-seated clinging still rule the roost.

Astus wrote:
On one hand, I agree, and in that way I agree with Aemilius as well in that there is just morality, meditation, and wisdom. On the other hand, it is a cardinal point of the Zen teachings that unlike the so called gradual path, it is a direct one.

If we just go and break down the immediate path to the bodhisattva way, that's basically calling Zen's bluff and bursting its bubble of fancy rhetoric. That is, in my view, perfectly fine, but then it should also be accepted that once the veneer is blown away the whole Zen set up is untenable, and the so called masters of present and past are nothing more than clowns.

Or we can take the message seriously and consider the possibility that there is more to Bodhidharma's arrival than entertaining words. If the mind transmission actually means something, this is not found in historical records, written words, meditation practice, or nice robes with cool titles. It is simply realising for oneself that all experiences are empty and unattainable. That insight is of course no different from what the sutras and the gradual path teaches. The question then is: how can one go directly instead of by stages? That's what all the Zen teachings are the answer for. Anyone can easily confirm that no bodily or mental occurrence remains for a moment, and it is only out of ignorance of this simple truth that one pointlessly attempts to hold on to something and experience dissatisfaction. So the mind is indeed originally pure and can never be tainted. Therefore, engaging in any kind of cultivation is not only meaningless but actually contra-productive and misleading.

What may be lacking to put a finger on the subitism of Zen is the general context of everyday life either in a monastery or as a lay person. That's a false impression texts (and films) can make, as inevitably the whole picture cannot be included into a few pages, not to mention all the things that were evident for contemporary readers. Basically, Zen is not a separate school or organisation, but exists as a (small) part of the larger East Asian tradition where monastics follow the precepts and perform rituals, and the laity visits the monastery to gain merit and hear some chanting. It's like high brow theology for everyday church goers and parish priests.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Aemilius said:
That is  misleading. The true path consist of ethics (shila), meditation (dhyana) and wisdom (prajña). Zen is a true (Mahayana) path. You must understand that it necessarily consist of the three trainings. But You have constructed a fantasy that is divorced from the three trainings, that does not contain them, that is contrary to reality.

Astus wrote:
There is a difference between gradual and sudden. What you talk about is the gradual method, the one attributed to Shenxiu in the following paragraph:

The master said, “I have heard that your master teaches students about morality, meditation, and wisdom, but I don’t know how he explains them. What are the characteristics of his practice? Tell them to me.”
Zhicheng said, “Great Master Shenxiu teaches that ‘not to do evil is called morality, to practice good is wisdom, and to purify one’s own intentions is called meditation.’ Thus does he teach. I wonder, with what Dharma does Your Reverence teach people?”
The master said, “To say that I have a Dharma for people would be to deceive you. I simply release people’s fetters according to the situation. The samādhi of provisional names, such as your master’s explanation of morality, meditation, and wisdom, is truly inconceivable. [But] my view of morality, meditation, and wisdom is different.”
(Platform Sutra, ch 8, p 73, BDK Edition)

See also what Keizan wrote in http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/zzyk.shtml:

Zazen is also not based upon discipline, practice, or wisdom. These three are all contained within it.
Discipline is usually understood as ceasing wrong action and eliminating evil. In zazen the whole thing is known to be non-dual. Cast off the numberless concerns and rest free from entangling yourself in the "Buddhist way" or the "worldly way." Leave behind feelings about the path as well as your usual sentiments. When you leave behind all opposites, what can obstruct you? This is the formless discipline of the ground of mind.
Practice usually means unbroken concentration. Zazen is dropping the bodymind, leaving behind confusion and understanding. Unshakeable, without activity, it is not deluded but still like an idiot, a fool. Like a mountain, like the ocean. Without any trace of motion or stillness. This practice is no-practice because it has no object to practice and so is called great practice.
Wisdom is usually understood to be clear discernment. In zazen, all knowledge vanishes of itself. Mind and discrimination are forgotten forever. The wisdom-eye of this body has no discrimination but is clear seeing of the essence of awakening. From the beginning it is free of confusion, cuts off concept, and open and clear luminosity pervades everywhere. This wisdom is no-wisdom; because it is traceless wisdom, it is called great wisdom.

It agrees with Dazhu's teaching in the http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment:

Discipline is centered upon purity and non-defilement. Meditation is centered upon stilling the mind so that it is moved by no object whatsoever. Wisdom is reached when the knowing mind is agitated by no object, but yet does not hold any thought of being unagitated. Wisdom is reached only when the knowing mind is clear and pure but has no thought of being clear and pure. Wisdom is reached when you can discriminate between good and evil, as well as other dualities, but, grasping none if them, remain free. Finally, if you realize that the "substances" of discipline, of meditation and of wisdom, none of which can be possessed, are indistinguishable -- i.e., are of only one substance -- this, in itself, is equal to the three studies undertaken and completed separately.

Aemilius said:
Moreover, Zen/Chan tradition is known for its poetic style and poetic liberties, they often try to express the path in a fresh and poetic manner. They are not bound to a limited abhidharmic technical vocabulary!

Astus wrote:
And what Zen is even more famous about is sudden enlightenment, that is, immediate realisation.

[The teaching that one can] cultivate the six perfections and the myriad practices in order to achieve Buddhahood—this is the progressive [approach to Buddhahood]. Since beginningless time, there has never been a Buddha [who achieved that state] progressively.
(Huangbo, in "Zen Texts", BDK Edition, p 14)

Aemilius said:
Mahayana dhyana is distinct from the sravakayana dhyana. You must not take the sravakayana tradition as a basis for evaluating the Mahayana dhyana, because they are not similar.

Astus wrote:
What are the differences between the 8/9 dhyanas of sravakas and bodhisattvas, and where are they described?

Aemilius said:
In the explanation of tripitaka master Hsuan Hua the Fifth Chapter of the Sutra of Hui Neng is unambiguously about sitting meditation

Astus wrote:
From his commentaries:

"Ch’an is not necessarily just sitting in meditation. One may practice Ch’an while walking, standing, sitting, and lying down."

"If you know how, you can practice Ch’an at all times, not just while sitting in meditation. "

"You shouldn’t just sit there and not move. You should cultivate nonmovement in the midst of movement; in the midst of your daily activities, do not move."

"Sitting in one place is not necessarily “sitting.” You are said to be “sitting” when your mind is no longer disturbed by external conditions, be they good or bad."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Aemilius said:
For example Faith in the Mind, verse 8 : "Stop speaking, stop thinking", which implies the second or above dhyanas, that are without thoughts or thinking.

Astus wrote:
Thinking for the dhyanas are vitarka (尋) and vicara (伺), while the verse says 慮. Also, it seems meaningless to talk about speaking in the context of calming meditation. And there are other problems with interpreting that line in your way.

Aemilius said:
And in verse 1: "stop loving and hating" means overcoming two of the five hindrances to dhyana. The practice of Dhyana is implied in the Faith in the Mind, otherwise it makes little or no sense.

Astus wrote:
Hate (憎) and love (愛) mean general preferences, something that's not come over until enlightenment.

Aemilius said:
The Sutra of Hui Neng is speaking of unified Prajña contemplation, does this not mean unified Dhyana & Prajña?

Astus wrote:
Not unified but one. The chapter on samadhi and prajna (chapter 4) explicitly criticises both the view that there is samadhi and prajna separately, and the view that one should sit calmly and attain tranquillity.

Aemilius said:
The Chapter Six in Hui Neng Sutra is called [i ]Sitting Chan [/i], ie Sitting Dhyana! This chapter is certainly about sitting meditation and nothing else.

Astus wrote:
That chapter is actually not about any formal meditation in a seated posture but rather that "seated meditation" (zuochan/zazen) means the mind's nature.

"In this teaching of seated meditation, one fundamentally does not concentrate on mind, nor does one concentrate on purity, nor is it motionlessness. ... To have such a view is to obscure one’s own fundamental nature, and only to be fettered by purity."
(Platform Sutra, ch 5, BDK Edition, p 45)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
tingdzin said:
But even aside from that, there is no real need to think that Huang po's teaching is at odds with devotion to Kwan Yin.

Astus wrote:
Not at odds, it's just mostly useless in terms of enlightenment.

[The teaching that one can] cultivate the six perfections and the myriad practices in order to achieve Buddhahood—this is the progressive [approach to Buddhahood]. Since beginningless time, there has never been a Buddha [who achieved that state] progressively. Just be enlightened to the One Mind and there will not be the slightest dharma that can be attained—this is the true Buddha.
(Huangbo, in "Zen Texts", BDK Edition, p 14)

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 e‡cacy is identical. There are no further gradations of profundity, only the useless striving of successive eons.
(p 16)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Title: Dhyana in Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
What role do dhyanas have in Zen?

In the teachings by Huineng, Mazu, Linji and other classical teachers there is little talk of any kind of meditation, and no discussion of cultivating absorption. Although Dogen did emphasise seated practice, but definitely not in a gradual manner. In the teachings of later Chinese masters from Dahui Zonggao through Hanshan Deqing to Xuyun the method of huatou is the preferred way to enlightenment.

In whose teachings can we find something on the dhyanas?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 13th, 2015 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: "If you can understand the mindfulness of no mindfulness
Content:
Astus wrote:
The question is from the 1st chapter of the Platform Sutra (It also appears as case 23 of Wumenguan.):

不思善，不思惡，正與麼時，那箇是明上座本來面目？惠明言下大悟。
‘Do not think of good, and do not think of evil. At just such a time, what is Elder Huiming’s original face?’ At these words, Huiming [experienced] a great enlightenment.

This https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/treatise-on-sitting-meditation gives some clear explanations. The point is that when one is not caught by craving and hatred, one sees things just as they are. Seeing clearly is the original face, where experiences are not coloured by one's preconceptions and inclinations. It is not about a special experience - although in a sense it is special - but about discovering the defilements to be from one's ignorance of how the mind works.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 13th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Chan, Mahamudra, and Tibet
Content:
kirtu said:
Nor is it likely that there was that much interaction between Daoist meditators and Chan meditators since their views of enlightenment are quite different.

Astus wrote:
Daoism, similarly to Hinduism, is not a single religion, and at the same time it encompasses all sorts of indigenous beliefs and practices. There are "Daoist" elements found all over Chinese Buddhism, but it could be equally called simply Chinese. When it comes to doctrines and methods, it seems to me that Buddhists were very much aware of the differences, just as today a Westerner would not confuse Christianity with Buddhism, even when certain terms are of Christian origin.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Chan, Mahamudra, and Tibet
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are a number of studies on Mahamudra's sutra sources. E.g. Klaus-Dieter Mathes: http://docslide.us/documents/klaus-dieter-mathes-bka-brgyud-mahamudra-chinese-rdzogs-chen-or-the.html, or David Higgins: https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8979/2872.

Although texts like the Vajrasamadhi Sutra (an early Chan text, likely from Korea) and the Lankavatara Sutra (often used as reference in early Chan) appear in Mahamudra teachings, not to mention the Prajnaparamita texts that are equally important in both Chan and Mahamudra, it does not mean that a direct connection between the two traditions can be established.

For instance, the same chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra (2.37 in Suzuki) is used in Chan, Yogacara and Mahamudra to set up their meditation system. But that only means that the sutra is a common basis.

And as Anders mentioned, the "Daoism+Buddhism=Chan" is fairly unfounded, plus oversimplified.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: "If you can understand the mindfulness of no mindfulness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Yet surely there must be an "original"--i.e., undefiled--state of mind. I intuitively think so, and have had results from a slight variation of the instructions derived from a Koan: "Return to the state you were in before your grandparents were born." This is the original nature without all the toxic mental garbage. But perhaps that state can be called, "No-Mind" in the sense that our mind (lower case "m") is nothing other than the toxic garbage.

Astus wrote:
Any state of mind it be, it changes. Because it changes, it is unreliable. When it is seen that all states of mind are unreliable, one does not abide in any. That not abiding is what is sometimes called no mind. It is also the original mind, because mind changes all the time, no matter what, and it never abides in the same state for consecutive moments. That's also why trying to find a true mind, attempting to attain an ultimate state is actually pointless.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: A good book on Jhanas
Content:
Techno Yogi said:
Well, the Sanskrit translation of the Pali jhāna is dhyāna, which was then translated into Chinese as 禅, which is pronounced as chán in Mandarin, but you may be more familiar with the Japanese pronunciation, which is Zen. Yes, there's an entire sect with a number of sub-sects named after jhāna!

Astus wrote:
But don't think the so called Chan/Zen school has anything to do with jhana.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 5:50 PM
Title: Re: A good book on Jhanas
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jhanas are meditative states (not stages on the path to enlightenment). Mahayana contains mostly the same description of them as in the Pali Canon. Such states are part of the calming (samatha) practice, however, they are not really used in later Mahayana meditation manuals for various reasons. The closest thing you can find that is still in use is probably the Tibetan's nine stages system. See: http://www.lionsroar.com/the-nine-stages-of-training-the-mind/, http://terebess.hu/english/oxherd27.html.

Otherwise, if you want to learn calming meditation, it is taught to a certain degree in every tradition and community as part of their meditation system.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is a section Blofeld (The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, p 46) comments about that "This paragraph is, perhaps, one of the finest expositions of Zen teaching, for it encompasses in a few words almost the entire scope of that vast and penetrating wisdom."

"When an ordinary person is about to die, he should merely contemplate the five skandhas to be all empty and the four elements to be without self. The true mind is without characteristics and neither goes nor comes: when one is born the [mind]-nature does not come [into one], and when one dies neither does the nature go [anywhere]. Peaceful, perfect, and serene, the mind and its realms are identical. If one can only right now suddenly achieve comprehension in this fashion, you will not be fettered by the three periods of time (i.e., past, present, and future) and will be a person who has transcended the world. You must definitely avoid having even the slightest bit of intentionality. If you see Buddhas of excellent characteristics (i.e., in their resplendent superhuman forms) coming to greet [and escort you to the Pure Land], with all the various phenomena [involved in such visions], then have no thought of following them. If you see various phenomena with evil characteristics, neither should you have any thoughts of fear. Simply forget your mind and identify yourself with the dharma dhåtu, and you will attain autonomy. This is the essential gist [of my teaching]."
(Huangbo: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, tr McRae in "Zen Texts", BDK Edition, p 24-25)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
We already have such a text, it is called bsam gtan mig dgron by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. The advantage to that text is that is has many citations from seminal early Chan texts already translated into Tibetan by Tibetan and Chinese Chan practitioners during the 8th century.

Astus wrote:
Is there an English translation already? Although, it certainly has no information on Huangbo.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
You mean there is no emptiness of the unconditioned? Emptiness means being free from all extremes, it does not mean being "conditioned." If it did, that would be a very inferior kind of emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means the lack of substance in appearances. Appearances - experiences in the six sensory areas - are conditioned. Appearances lack substance as they are interdependent, so the state of being conditioned and being empty is practically the same. Sure, there are the so called 16/18/20 types of emptiness, but that's besides the point here, because it has little merit to analyse non-appearances and other theoretical categories for now.

Malcolm said:
Wind moves, but it is neither sentient nor perceptive. Waves move, they are neither sentient nor perceptive. Clouds move, they are neither sentient nor perceptive. So it seems you definitive of sentient and perceptive because of the movement of thoughts, and so on is inadequate.

Astus wrote:
Wind, waves, and clouds move, but they are still not one and the same thing. Sentience requires movement, i.e. changing as well, to know appearances coming and going. A static (unconditioned) perceiver perceives nothing or always the same thing, so it is useless.

Malcolm said:
Are thoughts the same thing as the mind or are they different? If they are latter, how can a mind move inside of itself? Of they are different, how does their movement give the mind sentience?

Astus wrote:
There is no independent mind to contain objects. Experiences in the six sensory area occur as experienced, that is, qualified as known, thus the six consciousnesses. And that stream of experience can then be divided to subject and object, container and contained, and other such common terms.

Malcolm said:
Did anyone say consciousness [vijñāna] was unconditioned?

Astus wrote:
If jnana is the source and presence of sentience, and it is unconditioned, it means all perceptions happen to/by an unconditioned knower.

Malcolm said:
The eighteen dhātus does not actually explain how the mind is interdependent. It is a hinayāna model that assumes that a consciousness arises from the contact of sense object with a sense organ. In other words, it does not explain perception, it merely provides a taxonomy of our sensory apparatus.

Astus wrote:
If by explaining perception you mean giving it an ultimate origin, there is no such absolute source. The eighteen dhatus describes a simple mechanism of experience whereby consciousness is always related to various sense objects. That is, a perceiver without anything perceived is not a perceiver. Also, the purpose of the 18 dhatus is to eliminate the idea that there is a single, independent, unconditioned mind.

Malcolm said:
This fault does not apply, just as the mind of which it is the core is not established, also the unconditioned vidyā is not established, is empty by nature and is not something real or truly existent.

Astus wrote:
So vidya is not real, just a theoretically unconditioned knowing that is merely a figure of speech and not a source of all experiences and the whole world? Then I'm not sure why insist on it being anything other than emptiness, a conventional linguistic phrase, a utilitarian concept, a skilful means used according to the situation.

Malcolm said:
Is there a situation in which the mind can be found?

Astus wrote:
Conventionally it is very easy to find it: as thoughts, emotions, and impressions. It's only when one looks closer for anything substantial that it turns out to be ungraspable.

Malcolm said:
This presumes two things, one, that there is fact a distinction between sentient and nonsentient. Two, it presumes that time exists independently.

Astus wrote:
Ordinarily even animals can recognise whether it's an inanimate object or a living being. Otherwise, all appearances that are there are necessarily experiences, so they are sensed, they exist within the realm of sentience, and that way the only distinction one may make is on a conventional level. As for an independent time, I don't know what you mean there.

Malcolm said:
Since unconditioned self-originated pristine consciousness is the core of a conditioned mind, it indeed can be forgotten by that conditioned mind, or as it more accurately the case, not recognized. It is just like someone who looks for their keys all over the house not recognizing that they are holding those very same keys in their hand.

Astus wrote:
That sets up two knowers perceiving each other: one unconditioned and one conditioned.

Malcolm said:
Emptiness is unconditioned, but we have no problem describing it as the dharmatā of entities. Likewise, unconditioned, empty, self-originated pristine consciousness is the dharmatā of the mind.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness is not a thing, or appearance, so there's not much to make of it besides using as a way of clarifying how things are. If vidya is similarly a descriptive term to say that appearances are necessarily qualified by knowing, then it is fine. The problem comes up with vidya in the same way that it can with emptiness: when it is separated and positioned as and independent entity apart from appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddha, true death and escape from reincanation.
Content:
Techno Yogi said:
In fact there's http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#avyakata devoted to discounting this view, and indeed any view of the status of the Buddha after death.

Astus wrote:
And as the suttas explain it very clearly, the reason it makes zero sense to ask whether there is or isn't a Tathagata after death, is because even before death the Tathagata cannot be pinpointed as this or that. This is a very important point that people seem to forget almost every time, or they just not have heard about it.

DGA said:
I don't think that's so for Mahayana, though.  As I suggested earlier in this thread: Lotus Sutra, Chapter 16.  It does not leave much room for interpretation on this point.  Buddha Shaykaymuni spells out his position clearly and directly.

Astus wrote:
There are a number of ways to interpret the meaning of an "eternal buddha". Even what a buddha is needs some clarification.

Chapter 22 of Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise (MMK) discusses the nature of the Tathagata. Here are some conclusions:

This stanza shows the error in the assumption of the OP:

"One who holds firmly
That the Tathāgata exists
Will have to fabricate his nonexistence
After having achieved nirvana."
(MMK 22.13, tr from Ocean of Reasoning)

And solves it by:

"Since he is essentially empty,
Neither the thought that the Buddha exists
Nor that he does not exist
After having achieved nirvana is tenable."
(v 14)

The following stanza (v 15) matches with the http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html (ch 26):

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


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Maybe so, but I think your caution bears repeating.  Literary Chinese presents its own challenges and possibilities as a medium for Dharma transmission.  Context matters tremendously, so someone attempting a comparative study would need to have a very firm grip on how Huang Po uses this concept throughout his known writings.

Astus wrote:
Choosing Huangbo is a good start. Now for comparison's sake we also need a single Dzogchen text to work with, one that's been translated a few times to English and contains enough information (e.g. definitions).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, "inert" means "without sentience". Emptiness is not sentient. Thus, if emptiness were solely the nature of the mind, the mind could not be sentient.

Astus wrote:
Emptiness means conditioned, interacting. Sentience is living, connecting with events, phenomena influencing phenomena. Mind is sentient, perceptive, because impressions, emotions and thoughts move. If consciousness were unconditioned, it had no effect on anything and could not sense anything, that is, it were insentient.

Malcolm said:
How is consciousness interdependent? Does it come from the sense organ or the object? Without either?

Astus wrote:
The 18 dhatus is a basic description of how consciousness is interdependent, further elaborations are found in abhidharma and yogacara materials. The mind-stream continues from the preceding mind to the present mind.

Malcolm said:
Who said anything about an independent knower?

Astus wrote:
What you called the unconditioned knowing, the core and basis of mind and all appearances. It is unconditioned, therefore independent. It is knowing, what knows, so it is a knower, pure awareness.

Malcolm said:
This still does not explain the origin of consciousness, that is, how there can be a mind/consciousness at all.

Astus wrote:
Is there a situation where there is no mind? Can consciousness occur from non-consciousness? Samsara is without a beginning, so is the mind-stream of beings.

Malcolm said:
Self-originated pristine consciousness is nondual emptiness and knowingness, termed "the nondual dharmadhātu and vidyā." Pristine consciousness [ ye shes, jn̄āna ] is the core of the mind, self-arisen, unconditioned, uncontaminated, unaffected by the three times. When it is not recognized, then through that ignorance its potentiality becomes mind, dependent origination and all the phenomena of samsara. When it is recognized, one is the peer of Buddha Samantabhadra.

Astus wrote:
Since it is unconditioned and unaffected, it cannot recognise or forget itself. So a second perceiver is required that is conditioned, and its core cannot be the unconditioned knowing. In what other way can pristine consciousness be recognised or ignored?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
If the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness, how then is the mind not something inert? How does consciousness arise? From itself? From other? From both?
Dependent origination is just the perception of the deluded.

Astus wrote:
Inert would be something unconditioned and without interaction. Consciousness is interdependent, changing, and that's how it can sense objects, how there can be perception. An independent knower is without any object, consequently it does not sense anything, it is unknowing, unaware, unconscious. As an interdependent consciousness it does not need an origin, and that origin would mean an ultimate cause without a cause. Also, this original knower is a position discussed in the 9th chapter of MMK. Dependent origination is what the deluded does not realise, instead they assume inherent existence.

I assume you see that the above ones are common arguments against self-view. How come they don't apply to jnana?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
If that were true, it would a tautology and there would be no point.

Astus wrote:
Yes. Saying that consciousness is conscious is redundant.

Malcolm said:
It is saying that vijn̄āna/citta/manas has a dharmatā that is more than emptiness, which would render the dharmatā of the mind inert if all it was is emptiness. According to everything you have said, you maintain that the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness.

Astus wrote:
The nature (dharmata) cannot be separate from the thing (dharma). To say that the mind is empty is meant to help one get rid of reified concepts and identities, not to establish an emptiness separately from the mind. The mind cannot be inert exactly because it is dependently originated and functional. To add a knowing/awareness as the source of the experiencing function of the mind sounds very much like denying the functionality of dependent origination and establishing a substance separately from appearances. How is that not the case?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
All of these usages map to sems [citta] in Tibetan.

Astus wrote:
Well, then maybe it can work.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
心 translates the Sanskrit citta, correct?  if so, then there's some basis for working out a textual comparison between Dzogchen and Ch'an on the basis of "mind."

Astus wrote:
I wouldn't go there. Chan is mainly about translating the Dharma to common Chinese and not about transplanting Indian Buddhism, as that's already happened through other channels. Although Chan teachers were (almost?) exclusively educated elite monastics, so references to texts and concepts of Indian origin is not unusual, but it is not the main characteristics of the tradition. There is even a slight division between the so called eight schools to Chinese (Tiantai, Huayan, Chan, Jingtu (Pure Land)) and Indian (Madhyamaka (Sanlun), Yogacara (Faxiang), Vinaya (Lu), Mantra (Zhenyan)), that signifies mostly their origin in a sense.

Xin (心) can mean all sorts of things, even contradictory ones within the same sentence. Or as an illustration for its versatile use, here is the entry from the Soothill-Hodus dictionary of Chinese Buddhism:
心
hrd, hrdaya 汗栗太 (or 汗栗馱); 紀哩馱 the heart, mind, soul; citta 質多 the heart as the seat of thought or intelligence. In both senses the heart is likened to a lotus. There are various definitions, of which the following are six instances: (1) 肉團心 hrd, the physical heart of sentient or nonsentient living beings, e. g. men, trees, etc. (2) 集起心 citta, the ālayavijñāna, or totality of mind, and the source of all mental activity. (3) 思量心 manas, the thinking and calculating mind; (4) 緣慮心; 了別心; 慮知心; citta; the discriminating mind; (5) 堅實心 the bhūtatathatā mind, or the permanent mind; (6) 積聚精要心 the mind essence of the sutras.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
It would really help if someone who knows Huang Po's writings well and the context in which he wrote could give the characters that are translated as "One mind' or "universal mind" in English, and give a summary of how that is meant in the body of his teachings.

Astus wrote:
There are three translations out there: https://books.google.com/books?id=v5BxwNWIyfkC, http://www.ymba.org/books/dharma-mind-transmission and http://www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_ZenTexts_2005.pdf. They are all fine, as long as one can see how and what various terms mean.

One Mind (一心): As often in Chan texts, and other Chinese works, the numerical one is used instead of non-dual. They mean the same. Although "one mind" can also mean a one-pointed mind (concentration), that is not the case in Huangbo's work. As for its definition, it's already given in the text.

As for "universal mind", Blofeld writes (translator's intro, p 19): "In an earlier translation of the first part of this book, I ventured to substitute 'Universal MInd' for 'the One Mind', hoping that the meaning would be clearer. However, various critics objected to this, and I have come to see that my term is liable to a different sort of misunderstanding; it is therefore no improvement on 'the One Mind', which at least has the merit of being a literal translation."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
steve_bakr said:
You are very correct, of course. I was looking for a kind of ecumenical connection between Huang Po's Zen and Dzogchen, but your words transcend both sects, and are true in a more absolute sense.

Astus wrote:
There is connection, as both come from the perfect enlightenment of the Buddha, and both aim us toward the same liberation from suffering. Establishing a philosophical connection is a lot more complicated matter, as you can see for yourself in several threads on this forum debating the relationship between Zen and Dzogchen. But there is already a strong common basis for both not only in the words of the Buddha contained in the canonical scriptures, but also in the individuals' realisations preserved and passed on by the community.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: You Are Already Enlightened
Content:
Unknown said:
what is the role of cessation of thought in Ch'an/Zen?

Astus wrote:
See what is in the Platform Sutra (BDK Edition):

"If you empty your minds and sit in quietude, this is to become attached to the emptiness of blankness."
(ch 2, p 29)

"If one does not think of the hundred things in order to cause thought to be eradicated, this is bondage within the Dharma. This is called an extreme view."
(ch 2, p 34)

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

"In this teaching of seated meditation, one fundamentally does not concentrate on mind, nor does one concentrate on purity, nor is it motionlessness. If one is to concentrate on the mind, then the mind [involved] is fundamentally false. You should understand that the mind is like a phantasm, so nothing can concentrate on it. If one is to concentrate on purity, then [realize that because] our natures are fundamentally pure, it is through false thoughts that suchness is covered up. Just be without false thoughts and the nature is pure of itself. If you activate your mind to become attached to purity, you will only generate the falseness of purity. The false is without location; it is the concentration that is false. Purity is without shape and characteristics; you only create the characteristics of purity and say this is ‘effort’ [in meditation]. To have such a view is to obscure one’s own fundamental nature, and only to be fettered by purity."
(ch 5. p 45)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rigpa is a concept, so is One Mind. Concepts exist dependent on other concepts, they don't actually possess any meaning of their own. Concepts are also thoughts that just come and go. If one grasps at a thought, at a concept, that means taking it as something substantial, real, personal, important. From that single grasping occurs numerous other ideas and a view is formed, from the view actions come, and so on. Better just see concepts and thoughts for what they are: dependent and unreliable. Not abiding on a single thought, that is what the Buddha's path is about. Is it rigpa or one mind then?

See: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts (BDK Edition), p 14, 23-25, tr McRae


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mipham might say: Since there is nothing to designate as being produced from a cause or generated by condition because the great emptiness that has always been self-originated is intrinsically luminous, it is self-originated pristine consciousness. That is the mind of dharmatā or the luminous pristine consciousness.

Astus wrote:
"Therefore, thought of the unreal from the outset is calmed, and sense objects from the outset are void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. This calm Knowing of voidness and calm is precisely the mind of voidness and calm that Bodhidharma formerly transmitted. Whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on sense objects. Even during delusion the depravities are Knowing, but [Knowing] is not the depravities. Even during awakening the divine transformations are Knowing, but Knowing is not the divine transformations."
(Zongmi: Chan Letter in "Zongmi on Chan", p 88)

"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. This threefold body is you, listening to my discourse right now before my very eyes."
(Record of Linji, p 9, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Self-originated jnāna is the unconditioned essence of the eight consciousnesses, as Mipham puts its: [The] unconditioned self-originated wisdom of the original empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness is the mind of luminosity.
However, one needs to take care to understand what this "mind" is. Again, Mipham states: Here, dharmatā is called “original mind [ādyacitta].”  Though it is explained with the name mind or vidyā from the aspect of being intrinsically clear, it is not the mind included with the conditioned eight consciousnesses.

Astus wrote:
All it seems to say is that the eight consciousnesses have the attribute of consciousness, and that is their inherent quality; and that quality is not any singular instance of being conscious of something, but it is true for all eight, so in a sense it is unconditioned and nothing in particular at the same time. Did I miss something?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Pretty defective buddhanature, I'd say.

Astus wrote:
What special features would you add?

Question: "What is called Buddha Mind?" Answer: "Mind's having no mark of variation is called Thusness. Mind's unchangeableness is called the Dharma Nature. Mind's not being connected to anything is called liberation. The mind nature's unimpededness is called enlightenment. The mind nature's quiescence is called nirvana."
(Bodhidharma Anthology, p 16)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
For you, the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness. For Mipham, the dharmatā of the mind is unconditioned jñāna.

Astus wrote:
Is jnana knowing, an active awareness of appearances? Or is it without knowing of objects? If the former, it is conditioned. If the latter, it is unaware. Or is it perhaps the stream of experiences that can be described as equally empty and conscious, but still without falling into being conditioned by subject and object?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Some tentative answers here: http://earlytibet.com/2008/01/24/early-dzogchen-iii/

Astus wrote:
That makes it clear that Dzogchen occurred in its very early forms when in China Chan was already developing into various factions. Also, while Chan was very much https://books.google.hu/books?id=1Tu-rQEACAAJ around that time, there is no sign of Dzogchen in China as far as I'm aware, although there were some Indian masters who brought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangmi into the Tang empire during the 7th-8th century.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
This might be a can of worms, but are you effectively saying Vasubandhu et al were not aryas?

Malcolm said:
There is no way for me to know this as there is no way for me to know what their actual view and realization was.

Astus wrote:
Nevertheless, if they taught an incoherent and incorrect teaching, that is intentionally misleading people, something that's unfit for any bodhisattva.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Unlike Yogacara, Madhyamaka removes claims for existing existents.

Astus wrote:
I don't follow you here. What is an existing existent? Either something exists or not; and if it does, there is no need to double it.

Malcolm said:
Of course it applies — he proves that the other-dependent is incoherent.

Astus wrote:
It is only as incoherent as dependent origination, since dependent nature is just that: causality.

Malcolm said:
Because that is how they attempt to explain the meaning of mind-only.

Astus wrote:
It's not even mentioned in the Vimsatika that talks about consciousness only.

Malcolm said:
Yes, and for this reason, you don't really get the sense of Dzogchen. Mipham writes:

Astus wrote:
Do you mean that Dzogchen posits a consciousness of the type that's independent, unconditioned, removed from the five aggregates? If yes, it's difficult to maintain how that's not like an atman. If no, then I see no difference between what I said and what Mipham talks about.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Historical question:

Is there historical evidence to suggest that either Ch'an preceded Dzogchen historically, or that the reverse is true?  I know that scholars prefer the former claim, but I'm increasingly inclined to the latter.

I'm not trying to claim that one is better than the other, merely to suggest that the influence may be stronger in one direction than the other.  I'd be interested in a survey of the evidence going both ways.

Astus wrote:
What/Who is the first historically verifiable Dzogchen text and/or teacher?

John McRae (The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism, p 101-102) identifies a text from Dunhuang dated around 550-59 as the earliest of Chan work containing the Two Entrances and Four Practices attributed to Bodhidharma and some correspondence of Huike (see in English: https://books.google.com/books?id=BNfuSJ7cvnIC ). Other early notable people include Dayi Daoxin (580–651), Daman Hongren (601–674), Yuquan Shenxiu (606?-706) and Faru (638-689), and there is the famed Record of the Masters and Disciples of Lanka ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengqie_shizi_ji ) from 708 (see in English: https://books.google.com/books?id=JIqVPwAACAAJ ).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I would not agree that it is an accuracy vs 'free style lyrics' match. When you say that all appearances are divine, you may be absolutely precise and spot-on (as Vajrayana teachings claim to be). Your statement may not be intersubjective in the sense of the word logical positivists used, though.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it can be perfectly accurate. When there is a definition. What does divine mean then?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
My point still stands: you have just introduced a third narration, which (if I read you correctly) you see as underlying the other two. OK. But the tension between the first two very much remains.

Astus wrote:
I meant it as another way to express the "no inherent existence" part, not a new narration. Wasn't intended to solve any tension.

treehuggingoctopus said:
That terminology does not mean much if you are looking at language the way Ayer or Carnap would

Astus wrote:
I'm no positivist, but I prefer accuracy (to a certain degree) over free style lyrics when discussing Buddhism in a written form.

treehuggingoctopus said:
and all of it is already divine, you do not have to work at it -- you need only recognise it.

Astus wrote:
Same with emptiness, impermanence, buddha-nature and the rest. However, recognising it is also changing it, as the very cause of clinging is ignorance. Remove ignorance and the whole illusory castle of samsara falls apart. And since rarely anyone can switch immediately from worrying about tonight's lottery numbers to "all is divine", there is a path involved.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Imagine your girlfriend's reaction when you tell her that she does not exist, is perfectly empty of herself, no girlfriend in the girlfriend, zero inherent existence in her -- and in everything else, for that matter, too, she and everything else being equally empty and bereft of self-nature.

Astus wrote:
Let's change that a bit. Instead of talking about insubstantiality, tell her that everything down to the cellular level changes in her. That's no surprise really, fairly common knowledge. Then say that emotions, thoughts and even memories change. Not particularly surprising either. Since both body and mind are inconstant, there is no single entity to call one's self. Sounds logical even to ordinary intelligent people.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Compare that with her response to you telling her that she is perfectly and consummately divine, luminous and imbued with all the radiant potentiality there is -- as, fair enough, is everybody else and everything else.

Astus wrote:
That's very poetic, but unless such terminology is clarified, it doesn't mean much. So, what is being divine? Not omnipotent, omniscient or immortal, is it? Rather, it is a synonym for buddhahood, and that stands for being free from all afflictions and attachments, while at the same time fully compassionate and insightful. Now, that's quite a high standard to live up to, especially when on is in the role of a girlfriend, who not only is involved in a romantic relationship full of clinging, expectations and all sorts of other entrapments, but also lives the life of an ordinary person with family, work, personal goals, consumerism, and so on. Or, if one were to say that one is divine with all that included, the word becomes just a hollow term used for ego-boost. And when one is explained that one has to realise being divine through following a set of methods, the story about being perfectly divine becomes a bait, in other words, a skilful device to get people into Buddhism.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Maybe they understood the Buddhanature differently? That is what Malcolm suggested in the un/wholesome thread.

Astus wrote:
Without digressing into philosophical disputes, buddha-nature in Zen is just one's own mind. What is mind? This mind reading and thinking. Thoughts, emotions, impressions come and go. One doesn't have to do anything, as experiences are already ungraspable and naturally non-abiding. In other terms, the mind is free and aware just as it is.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 7:09 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I think you are missing what the emotive difference between 'emptiness' and 'luminous display' points towards. The difference is even more visible if you compare the early Ch'an's 'all existence is emptiness'

Astus wrote:
Emotive difference is important, that's how people with various inclinations select their favourite tradition. But since it is more a matter of style than content, it is a question of skilful means used for the same purpose.

Early Chan is not just about emptiness. Shenxiu - the first imperially recognised Chan teacher - was quite strong on buddha-nature. In fact, the only group that seems to have emphasised mainly emptiness and Madhyamaka-style rhetoric was the Niutou school.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 6:19 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
If it is the same text, how do you account for the seeming inconsistency?

Astus wrote:
The text (Two Means and Four Practices) is not inconsistent. The first means, entering via principle (理 - principle, ultimate reality), practically means the realisation of how things actually are, i.e. suchness, buddha-nature. It says that one moves from being deluded to enlightened by non-discrimination, as all appearances are now seen as without essence. The second means, entering via practice (行 - practice, action), describes four ways to cultivate in a way that induces entering the principle, or in a sense cultivating the principle. It could be said that the difference between the two means is like jumping and walking, or theory and practice.

treehuggingoctopus said:
In the first passage you quote, this bit seem actually to be one of the problems which according to the authors Dzogchen has with Ch'an: 'Since all existence is empty, there is nothing to be desired'. The difference would appear to be between all existence being emptiness and everything being luminous display, would it not?

Astus wrote:
What is the difference between emptiness and luminous display? Emptiness means that there is nothing to grasp. Luminous display means that all experiences are the emanations of buddha-nature, thus there is nothing to fix. In both cases one remains unaffected and free, and appearances do not induce afflictions. Furthermore, Zen does also talk about all phenomena being the buddha-nature as well, it is not limited to only one kind of teaching, neither is Mahayana in general.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 4:38 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Yet there is a difference, since for Ch'an the fundamental root is to be sought, while for rDzogs-chen the intrinsic awareness is spontaneous.

Astus wrote:
The third practice as taught by Bodhidharma (from the same text that talks about wall-contemplation):

"Third, to seek nothing. Ordinary people, in their perpetual ignorance, crave and form attachments to everything, everywhere. This is called seeking. The wise are awakened to the Truth, and choose reason over convention; even though their forms follow the law of causality, their minds are at peace and empty of effort.  Since all existence is empty, there is nothing to be desired.  Blessing and Darkness always follow each other. This long sojourn in the Triple Realm is like living in a burning house; to have a body is to suffer, how can one attain peace? Those who understand this renounce all mundane existence, cease desires, and stop seeking. The sutra says, “To seek is to suffer, to seek nothing is bliss.” It follows that to seek nothing is to truly follow the Way. This is the practice of seeking nothing."
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=57 )

Linji Yixuan:

"Bring to rest the thoughts of the ceaselessly seeking mind, and you will not differ from the patriarch-buddha. Do you want to know the patriarch-buddha? He is none other than you who stand before me listening to my discourse. But because you students lack faith in yourselves, you run around seeking something outside. Even if, through your seeking, you did find something, that something would be nothing more than fancy descriptions in written words; never would you gain the mind of the living patriarch. Make no mistake, worthy Chan men! If you don’t find it here and now, you’ll go on transmigrating through the three realms for myriads of kalpas and thousands of lives, and, held in the clutch of captivating circumstances, be born in the wombs of asses or cows."
(Record of Linji, p 8, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sure there are.

Astus wrote:
Just as Madhyamaka affirms a conventional dependent origination and does not claim total non-existence, the same is stated by saying that there is a dependent nature.

"How should one understand the other-dependent pattern? It should be understood through the teaching on such similes as a magic trick, a mirage, a dream trace, a shadow, a reflection, a valley echo, the moon in water, a transformation." (section 26)

Candrakirti's critique does not apply, when it is understood that the lack of subject and object means the incorrect reification is no more, otherwise it would be self-defeating, asking for a self to perceive no-self.

Malcolm said:
For example? Who did do you gave in mind?

Astus wrote:
Yes, Shantarakshita and Kamalashila, as they go from mind-only to analysis of emptiness. Shentong seems like another good example. Or here's a modern one:

"We can look at these two views and take the stand that Nagarjuna's view is correct and Asanga's view is incorrect, or we can consider Asanga's view as correct and Nagarjuna's view as incorrect. Jamgon Kongtrul, however, says that this is not the way to look at this issue at all. We should not think, "One side is correct, therefore the other side must be wrong." Instead, we should realized these two views are a unity with neither side being right or wrong."
(Thrangu Rinpoche: "Two Views of Emptiness: Shentong and Rangtong", p 118)

Malcolm said:
Yogachara and Madhyamaka did not "come together" in Shantarakshita because the latter never uses the scheme of the three own natures, which is the key doctrine of the Yogacara school.

Astus wrote:
Why is that the key doctrine? They also have quite a few other unique ideas. I'd say the teaching of mind only is an equally important teaching for instance.

Malcolm said:
No, even Karl B recognizes that the system of the three own natures used by Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu [type a] is not the system used by the gzhan stong pas [type b].

Astus wrote:
What is the difference? Or if you have a book reference, that might be enough as well.

Malcolm said:
What Tibetan term do you mean for awareness? Rig pa?

Astus wrote:
It's nothing like that. You can change that word to consciousness or mind. What I try to highlight is that the quality of consciousness/awareness is already and necessarily present in the mind (mental aggregates), and generally in the whole realm of experience, since without being aware/conscious of something, one cannot say that it is experienced.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Madhyantavibhaga is basically asserting that the perfect is the absence of the imagined in the dependent. The dependent however is never refuted. It is the emptiness that exists in which no duality exists.

Frankly, I am a little surprised that you don't understand the difference between Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Yogacarins and Madhymakas in India certainly understood the differences between their respective schools, and there is an extensive polemical literature which exists between them detailing the differences.

Astus wrote:
In the basic works of Asanga and Vasubandhu there is no attack against Nagarjuna's teachings or Prajnaparamita works in general. While there were people in the later centuries who thought in terms of opposing views, there were others who could put the two into a single system.

Just as the dependent is the ultimate without the imagined, so is seeing the inseparability of interdependence and emptiness, the conventional and the ultimate, is called the middle way. Not reifying appearances is seeing their dependent-empty nature for both Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Regarding their differences, Yijing's summary (quoted by Malcolm David Eckel in his "Bhavaviveka and His Buddhist Opponents", p 95; and "Undigested Pride" in "Madhyamaka and Yogacara - Allies or Rivals?", p 133) sounds nice and succinct: "For Yogacara ultimate (真) is (有), conventional (俗) isn't (無). They use the three natures as the foundation. For Madhyamaka ultimate isn't, conventional is. Indeed the two truths is primary [for them]. The Prajnaparamita's great teaching contains both ideas." (T40n1817p783a29-b1)

In East Asian Buddhism they talk about the two approaches to the Dharma in terms of existence/is (you/u 有) and non-existence/isn't (wu/mu 無), what appears in the popular question about the http://www.sanbo-zen.org/shoyoroku_18.pdf. But it's been synthesised early on in Tiantai's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#The_Threefold_Truth, so they likely did not miss the later Indian developments of first Madhyamaka and Yogacara attacking each other, then their coming together in the teachings of for instance Shantarakshita and Kamalashila.

Malcolm said:
Please give us a specific example of how Yogacara doxology influences Vajrayāna? You surely are aware that Tantras such as the Hevajra subordinate Yogacara to Madhyamaka? And are you sure that it is not merely a case of Madhyamakas using terminology found in Yogacara but repurposing it?

Astus wrote:
Look at this thread as an example: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=13491. There's also the whole Shentong teaching among Nyingmapas and Kagyupas, of which Brunnholzl writes: "what is called Shentong is nothing other than the Yogacara (Yoga Practice) system of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu, also called “the lineage of vast activity.”" (Center of the Sunlit Sky, p 445)

Malcolm said:
As long as you think the unconditioned nature of the mind is merely emptiness, for that long you will never understand either Dzogchen or Mahāmudra.

Astus wrote:
Mind, per definition, is conscious. To say that the mind is empty is to say that awareness is empty. It's not denying awareness, nor is it reducing it to insentience. Awareness is the interdependent stream of experiences, and it is not separate from its insubstantiality. Mind is conditioned, that's why it is without essence, otherwise it would not function at all. So being conditioned is the unconditioned, and unconditioned is the conditioned itself. How is that wrong for Dzogchen?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
(1) vidya = direct knowledge of the dharmata of the mind, and the dharmata of the mind = self-originated pristine consciousness.
(2) in Ch'an there is no realization of the dharmata of the mind (= self-originated pristine consciousness); instead there is the realization of emptiness, which is an entirely different (because incomplete) realization.

Does the difference boil down to the dharmata being understood differently in Ch'an and Vajrayana/Dzogchen?
If so, how are their understandings different?

Astus wrote:
Beings are made of body-mind, the five aggregates, the six sensory areas. To realise their emptiness is to see their true nature (dharmata). Not to see the true nature of the mind would mean that someone understands only that the body is empty but not the mind. A highly unlikely situation for a Buddhist practitioner. Unless Dzogchen posits something beyond the possible realm of experience (body-mind), the difference you mention is non-existent.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
With respect to the Yogacara school, they do indeed posit an ultimate consciousness — it is the meaning of line of Madhyantavibhaga, "The imagination of the unreal exists..." and so on, though I understand it is fashionable these days to try and rescue Yogacara from being hoisted on its own petard.

Astus wrote:
As I read it, the Madhyantavibhaga there says nothing different from what Nagarjuna writes about the equality between dependent origination and emptiness. It is also repeated in how the three natures are explained. If that means Yogacara is at fault, then so is Madhyamaka.

Malcolm said:
Yes, that is the whole point.

Astus wrote:
That's quite a huge point, putting Yogacara into the position of not only a less developed view, but actually means that they massively failed in setting up a coherent system. Then it is certainly strange how Yogacara has such a big influence on virtually every Mahayana (incl. Vajrayana) school. So, I'm still doubtful about that interpretation's validity.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
it is definitely valid

Astus wrote:
That would mean that they still maintain a real subject, contradicting themselves.


Malcolm said:
No, the second is svasamvedana [ rang rig ] that is merely empty of subject and object, but truly exists -- standard Yogacara.

Astus wrote:
True existence of a mind without subject-object would be no different from some concept of a self, actually a subject without object. But they state explicitly that neither outer objects nor an inner mind is established as anything real.

"Through the perception
That there is only thought,
There arises the non-perception of knowable things;
Through the non-perception of knowable things,
There arises the non-perception of thought, too."
(Treatise on the Three Natures, v 36, tr Kochumuttom)

See also: Treatise in Thirty Stanzas, v 26-29.

Malcolm said:
There is an important citation in the Inlaid Jewels Tantra that clarifies the difference between these two:
Untainted vidyā is the kāya of pristine consciousness. 
Since intrinsic knowing [rang rig, svasaṃvedana] is devoid of actual signs of awakening, 
it is not at all the pristine consciousness of vidyā [rig pa'i ye shes].

Astus wrote:
The reason I brought that citation is to show that the difference between knowing and unknowing lies in the presence or absence of dual vision. Self-awareness is another matter.

Malcolm said:
Might I suggest that if you are going to argue about Tibetan traditions, you do so on the basis of understanding Tibetan and the etymologies of Sanskrit terms in Tibetan?

Astus wrote:
Certainly a useful thing. But here it's just your quote's definitions that looked similar. I'm happy to receive clarifications.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Unknown said:
they hold that as truly existent

Astus wrote:
I don't see that accusation valid, at least not against Vasubandhu.

Dzogchen: "empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness"
Yogacara: "empty intrinsically knowing pristine consciousness"

Both sound to me like a non-abiding mind. Also,

"What is the difference between ordinary wisdom, which arises from a mind endowed with subject/object grasping, and individually selfcognizant wisdom? Ordinary, conventional superior wisdom arisen from intellect differentiates between subject and object, this and that, whereas these defining characteristics of ordinary mind are nowhere to be found in individually self-cognizant wisdom. There is no ordinary apprehension or conceptualization whatsoever. Thus, to recognize the level of wisdom that is being expressed by the mind, we must become skillful at noticing and cutting through any mode of grasping."
(Journey to Certainty, p 119)

and

"the perception of samsara is nothing more than the result of subject/object grasping. When grasping is not present, this is liberation."
(Journey to Certainty, p 146)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Just that is, according to Mipham, "...the ultimate state of the sublime Dharma."

Astus wrote:
Seems to be no different from the Yogacara term citta-dharmata, that is actually the same as emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mipham writes in his Original Mind:
Once one has realized the meaning of the Great Perfection (the conclusion of the Dharma of the eight vehicles that make mind into the path) which makes pristine consciousness into the path, it is explained that buddhahood will not be attained until the vidyā of the Great Perfection, self-originated pristine consciousness, is realized.
In other words, buddhahood does not come about solely from realizing emptiness, the dharmatā of emptiness, buddhahood requires realizing vidyā, the dharmatā of the mind.

Astus wrote:
And what is the dharmata of the mind? That it is without inherent existence. That is what should become clear to anyone investigating the aggregates and the sensory areas. How is that any different from simply calling it "realising emptiness"?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
What else is to be realized? Vidyā.

Astus wrote:
What more does vidya include?

Malcolm said:
Apparently not, otherwise, Mipham would not have taken it to task.

Astus wrote:
I am not familiar with Mipham's intellectual-cultural context, where such terminology was a problem, but I can imagine such a situation. Still, it doesn't look like that everyone in Tibetan Buddhism stopped using it.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Really? Than please tell us what is to be realized.

Astus wrote:
The emptiness of self and phenomena, what else?

Malcolm said:
That is exactly what "union" means, tying two things together, for example, the union of a man and a woman.

Astus wrote:
For educational purposes it is fine to talk of emptiness, appearances and their unity. Then eventually it becomes clear that all three terms are conventional expressions.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Thus the view in Dzogchen is the direct perception of pristine consciousness introduced by the guru, it is not a result of intellectual analysis.

Astus wrote:
That's at best a difference in method, of how to relinquish attachment, but not in what is realised. Or it is about criticising those who mistake emptiness for a reified concept of emptiness, a position already rejected by Nagarjuna and his followers.

Malcolm said:
What single entity ties them together? You still did not answer the question.

Astus wrote:
Tying together would need two things to be tied together. Who would consider that there is such a thing as "selflessness" on the one hand and "aggregates" on the other? It makes no sense. Even saying that there is a thing/being/object as "selflessness" is misreading the expression, like saying that one's pocket is filled with "pennilessness".


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
What denial are you claiming would be a result if Dzogchen does not make this distinction?

Astus wrote:
The problem (Hashang and his black and white clouds) is detailed in e.g. Lamrim Chenmo, vol 2, p 87-89. At the same time, Longchenpa in the Way of Abiding, p 134-135, says that Dzogchen does agree with such a view that's criticised by Tsongkhapa and others. As I take it, they can be consolidated, if statements are put in the right context.

Malcolm said:
In point of fact, Ju Mipham, since you invoked him, is not comfortable with the idea that there is a "union" or "nonduality" of appearance and emptiness, this is why he questions the idea.
The ultimate view of Dzogchen is not merely the two kinds of selflessness. It goes beyond that. Mipham's perspective, again, since you brought him up, is that the view of sūtra does not approach the view of mantra.

Astus wrote:
Terms like appearance and emptiness are meant for guidance, not for getting hung up on them and splitting hairs. But as it usually happens, things can deteriorate to the point where terminology needs to be reviewed.
What higher view can be presented than not being bound by any view? It would be falling back to clinging to views.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Therefore, it is shown that there is not the slightest difference between Buddha Samantabhadra and the King of Hell, Dharmarāja.
-- Vimalamitra

Astus wrote:
Yes, both good and bad dharmas are empty, kleshas are bodhi, and samsara is nirvana. That is not the same as refuting/denying the conventional existence of wholesome and unwholesome for deluded beings, as the driving forces behind the various forms of birth, as stated in the referenced aspiration prayer for instance. I did not say that Dzogchen uses specific antidotes, just that it recognises the function of various mental inclinations.

Malcolm said:
We were on your point about union of appearance and emptiness.

Astus wrote:
And they are so, nobody claimed otherwise. What you seemed to object against was summing up the ultimate view as the two kinds of selflessness, I guess because it may be mistaken for some annihilationist extreme, while Dzogchen likes to equally emphasise awareness and emptiness as the inseparable nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Dzogchen point of view is that delusion is just delusion, and there is no liberation through engaging in deluded virtue, let alone avoiding deluded nonvirtue.

Astus wrote:
So says everyone else in Buddhism. Skilful and unskilful acts bring about karmic results within samsara, and I see no denial of that in Dzogchen either, since it does talk about the lower and higher realms.

Malcolm said:
You have not eliminated the reification of oneness and manyness, that is the point of the question.

Astus wrote:
Are we still on the subject of selflessness?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
as the Soaring Great Garuda states:
Butchering, prostitution, the five uninterrupted deeds,
immoral behavior and that avoided by the world,
are totally perfect, the nectar of Dharma —
there is nothing other than great bliss.

Astus wrote:
It clearly says they are immoral behaviour. So there is awareness of a difference between good and bad. It's another thing that it claims that nothing can defile primordial purity, a logical consequences of the oneness of samsara and nirvana. Still it maintains that for the deluded beings of the world those are unwholesome activities.

Malcolm said:
Yup, but you did not answer Mipham's question.

Astus wrote:
"what is the single identity holding both appearance and emptiness together as one thing?"

The question assumes that appearances and emptiness are two and need holding together. I do not hold such an assumption.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
It describes the state of samsara, but it does not recommend some practice of accepting and rejecting wholesome and unwholesome things.

Astus wrote:
It doesn't have to, as pure view also means pure conduct, the natural manifestation of buddha activities. But, as I said before, the teachings do not say that within samsara there are no good and bad, it's just that for a dzogchenpa the solution to that is the ultimate approach of neither grasping nor rejecting.

"Briefly, for the best practitioners,
Unwholesome thoughts are settled in the dharmakaya.
Good thoughts, bad thoughts — both are on a level.
Therefore there's no need for antidotes."
(Treasury of Precious Qualities, vol 2, p 58)

Malcolm said:
In the Commentary on Liquid Gold, Ju Mipham asks the question: Also, in terms of the claim, “appearance and emptiness are nondual,” what is the single identity holding both appearance and emptiness together as one thing?
One can say that appearances and emptiness are 'du bral med, that it, they cannot be put together [ 'du ] or separated [ bral ], in other words, they are whole and indivisible, but to say they are a union, well, that involves a whole other set of problems as Ju Mipham points out.

Astus wrote:
I used the word unity, as in "one" and "single". There is no selflessness or emptiness as a thing or being anywhere, it's just how appearances are. Otherwise it would be assuming a self outside the aggregates, or taking the aggregates as one thing and emptiness another.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, but where is anything defined as wholesome or unwholesome? Something to be accepted as opposed to something be to be rejected?

Astus wrote:
The text goes on about the five poisons and how they're remedied by recognising the natural state. It also mentions the six realms here and there. Since it recognises the various types of births, as they depend on good and bad inclinations, it includes the system of the wholesome and unwholesome states. Of course, it is not really a text to get into the details of karma, but it is obviously presupposed.

Malcolm said:
[T]he emptiness arrived at through the power of analysis does not rise above a nonaffirming negation, it does not become the view of Mantra...Someone who maintains that emptiness is good and maintains that existence is bad places great importance on the nonaffirming negation. The Bhagavan said that it is better to abide in a view of the personality complex the size of a mountain. The view of the nonexistence of the personality complex is wrong.

Astus wrote:
The quote from Anyen Rinpoche talks about the unity of emptiness and appearances as the correct view, and not to take them separately. I see no contradiction between the two quotes.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome...

Malcolm said:
Citation please, from an original Dzogchen text.

Astus wrote:
"It is the very state of unawareness, which is the cause of delusion. In that state you suddenly lose consciousness, and from that unclear state fear comes into being. From that arises clinging to self and clinging to other as enemy. This habitual tendency gradually grows, and from this a progressive entry into samsara occurs. Next, the five poisons of the passions develop, and the karma of these five poisons is unceasing."
( http://www.vajrayana.org/media/files/files/d74e3a90/Kunzang_Monlam_letter_format.pdf )

Malcolm said:
If you think Dzogchen can be summed up by the two kinds of selflessness [persons and phenomena], you have not understood Dzogchen at all.

Astus wrote:
"Mipham Rinpoche tells us that we should not understand what appears and what is empty in the way that we understand light and darkness. The proper way for us to understand them is as fire and warmth. In this way, we become skillful at understanding emptiness and dependent arising, dependent arising and emptiness. There is no more profound understanding of the view of Dzogchen than this."
(Anyen Rinpoche: Journey to Certainty, p 134-135)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Starting Zen Practice
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
The necessity of a teacher, however, is my biggest concern. I suppose I'll have to read up and reach out.

Astus wrote:
You have to meet a teacher to see if you can become a student.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
fckw said:
With "countering" I did not mean that you do it during Vipassana practice. But there is a presumption that certain mind states are actually negative and others are positive, and as a consequence that you should avoid the negative ones and cultivate the positive ones. This simply does not hold in Dzogchen in the same way. In Dzogchen, to see things as primordially pure is an important meditation instruction. However, if they indeed are this way, there cannot be such a thing as "negative mind states".

Astus wrote:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome, otherwise it'd be in denial in a way they accuse Hashang's doctrine. It's just that in terms of view one realises that all phenomena are empty, thus no need to grasp or reject. Same is taught in Theravada with the contemplation on the three characteristics.

fckw said:
Furthermore, another important difference is that according to the Therevadin tradition there's no such a thing as rigpa, whereas in Dzogchen rigpa is the "underlying mind" of all appearances (and the primordial ground, kun zhi, is again underlying rigpa), and the five skandhas are seen as five different forms of wisdom. In Therevada there's actually nothing beyond the 5 skandhas. A more informed discussion of the matter can be found http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1342.

Astus wrote:
Rigpa is the knowing of reality, and such knowledge is the goal of Theravada as well. Assuming a self (an absolute) beyond the five aggregates is denied not only in Theravada but in Mahayana as well. There is also no disagreement in that it's not the skandhas themselves that are the problem but the attachment to them based on ignorance. So once reality is seen (no self inside, outside or in between the aggregates), there is no clinging, and without clinging there is liberation. Although that doesn't mean that there is no difference in terminology and in some methods.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus wrote:
Not exactly the words of the Buddha, but rather something that comes from insight based on the Dharma.

Vasana said:
Not exactly true within the context of Dzogchen. Not the words of the historical flesh-and-blood Buddha, but the words from the perspective of the primordial Buddha, which is timeless realization it's self. Something not far away, but temporarily obscured.

Astus wrote:
I don't really see the difference there. You call it "primordial Buddha, which is timeless realization itself". I called it "insight based on the Dharma". Insight = realisation. Dharma = primordial Buddha. Nevertheless, I meant it as a possible approach from a Theravadin perspective, not as Dzogchen's self-definition.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.simplybeing.co.uk/about-james-low/ is an English Dzogchen teacher (so is http://www.keithdowman.net/, but he doesn't really go to the UK), and there are many fine teachings available on his website.

As for the whole status of the Vajrayana tradition from a Theravadin perspective, you can take it as similar to the individual teachings of people like Ajahn Mun and Ledi Sayadaw. Not exactly the words of the Buddha, but rather something that comes from insight based on the Dharma. What can be somewhat confusing at the beginning is the different terminology, but eventually you may find that essentially they teach the same thing of anicca, dukkha, and anatta.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Places to Ordain in the Chinese Tradition
Content:
Astus wrote:
What kind of monasticism do you thing there was until the mid-20th century? As far as I am aware, the great communities in Taiwan mentioned here are not that different at all, and in some ways even better because of the modern conditions and such. Still, if you want to ordain in Taiwan or PRoC, you need to be able to speak Chinese (eventually). Most of the smaller Buddhist churches and even larger monasteries do not have English language websites, except for tourists.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the whole monastic realm is not like a restaurant chain where you can rely on some quality control and order whatever food you like. On the ground things might turn out to be quite different from what you would expect, for better or worse. Not because no information is available, but because there are aspects one may not think of beforehand, like all the rituals and ceremonies, or the kinds of food they have, etc.

A good thing about such organisations like FGS is that you can actually visit them, even spend some time there if you like, and they are not only prepared for that, but invite people.

I don't know what books you have read about Chan, but maybe you should read for instance Holmes Welch's work: https://books.google.com/books?id=17PBC3e4dmMC. And some other relevant works, like https://books.google.com/books?id=rlJ5AgAAQBAJ, https://books.google.com/books?id=nYdOnj41h-AC, https://books.google.com/books?id=dWL6EEkL8goC, https://books.google.com/books?id=efwxhVSRJv0C, https://books.google.com/books?id=J1tZBMy52oYC, https://books.google.com/books?id=0D0IUv8NeWMC, https://books.google.com/books?id=pSazfSorJzgC, and others that discuss the social history of Buddhism in China. It clarifies how the Chan world that may come through their own religious works (i.e. Chan books) is little more than a myth.

Also, Chan actually means Chinese Buddhism, with all its teachings, practices and rituals. There is no exclusive Chan school where monks sit all day long contemplating an old phrase. At the same time, one may find places where one can find certain practitioners who focus more on meditation than other matters. Even more so, if one is drawn to emulating the old masters of the Chan school, that means long solitary retreats, just as Xuyun did, and so did people like Shengyan (founder of Dharma Drum) and Weijue (founder of Chung Tai).

The best way to get information on places of ordination is to establish a personal connection with the people of the nearest Chinese Buddhist community. Then they can refer you to their home monastery.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Starting Zen Practice
Content:
Caodemarte said:
If it is true Zen practice then won't you end up at the same place no matter what color robes are worn?

Astus wrote:
Rather it should be genuine bodhisattva practice. Teachers provide various means to help others, that's their bodhisattva activity. Disciples need to cultivate open ears and open mind, that's their bodhisattva activity. Teachers and disciples share the same vows and aspirations of saving all beings and attaining unsurpassed enlightenment.

Zen is pointing directly to the mind to see nature (kensho) and become buddha. What is the mind? The mind is buddha. Nothing to add, nothing to remove, just as it is: changing moment to moment.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Starting Zen Practice
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
I'm a bit drawn to Dogen. Is "Zen just Zen," in the sense that I shouldn't have to worry too much about sectarian differences? If that's the case, I'll just take a trip.

Astus wrote:
Probably the only time to worry about sectarian differences is when you want to win a sectarian debate. Otherwise, you need to look around and see what fits your taste. Likely it will have more to do with the individuals in the group than their affilitaion with some bigger organisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Title: Starting Zen Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is a geographical problem. Locate the nearest Zen group, then visit them.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Is doing art just a waste of time?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I see it, the question is: What is not a waste of time?

Time goes by no matter what. Is art more, less, or equally as valuable as sitting on the toilet? Are social and religious values better, worse, or the same as arbitrary personal judgements? Can we even judge something independent of already integrated views?

Buddhist morality puts emphasis not on the act but the intention. Intention can be wholesome, unwholesome and neutral. Maybe you should measure art that way.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Buddha-nature and Non-Self
Content:
Astus wrote:
To realise that there is nothing stable (self) in the six sensory areas is attaining buddha-nature (self). Thus no self is the real self.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is clearly chauvinistic and merely perpetuates androcentrism and mysogyny in the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
Yes, and before that section in the Nirvana Sutra it talks about how women are full of insatiable desire. However, the reason I quoted it is, that it can be taken as one way of Buddhist scriptures tackling widespread misogyny prevalent in texts and societies. Instead of reading the negative characteristics of female birth as referring to biology, it transforms that to a spiritual level. Sure, it's not that same as what one finds in the Soma Sutta and others claiming sex to be another mistaken self-identity, but as tathagatagarbha teachings are transitory teachings from self-view to no-self, it fits well into the scheme of gradually eliminating sexism.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.than.html )

"Good man, it is in this sense that good men and good women who listen to this Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra will always decry the marks that characterize a female and seek to be male . Why? Because this Mahayana scripture has the characteristic of manliness (pauru$a). I am referring to buddha-nature. If someone does not understand buddhanature, then he does not have male characteristics. Why do I say this? Because he cannot grasp the fact that the buddha-nature exists within himself. I would say those unable to know the buddha-nature are to be called women. I would say those who are able to know themselves that the buddha-nature exists are characteristically male. If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male."
(Nirvana Sutra, p 301-302, tr Blum, BDK Edition / p 135 in tr Yamamoto)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: The Big Bang and the Heart Sutra
Content:
Serenity509 said:
If a Buddhist were asked what existed before the Big Bang, if it were shown the Big Bang as the universe's origin is actually true, the answer should be simple: Dharmakaya existed before the Big Bang. Very simple.

Astus wrote:
As I have already commented on the error in the referenced article, it seems redundant to repeat the same claims without establishing them in the Buddha's teachings. The very idea of a beginning is directly against such fundamental doctrines as dependent origination. Therefore, whatever scientific source you quote to claim a real beginning, has no relevance whatsoever to Buddhism.

There is an entire samyutta (the 15th) on the topic of no discernible beginning. Here is a quote from the first sutta (SN 15.1, tr Bhikkhu Bodhi):

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

And from a definitive Mahayana source, Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise, 11.1 (tr Ocean of Reasoning, p 266):

"When asked if the beginning is known,
The great sage said “no.”
Cyclic existence is without origin or terminus.
Because there is no beginning or end."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: The Big Bang and the Heart Sutra
Content:
Serenity509 said:
My Dharma friend, did you read this article, and if so, could you please tell me where, specifically, this article is incorrect?

Astus wrote:
It is wrong in its assumption that things come from or are created by emptiness. As it starts here:

"It has always been Buddhism’s contention that all things are “One”, as seen in the video from the previous post. This means that all physical phenomena, including human beings and everything that surrounds them, come from the same origin. They are different only in the way they are manifested, which is the result of nothing more than the differences in the type of atoms they have and the way these atoms are arranged. Despite their differences, they share the same “Essence”."

Not to mention that it fails to give a definition of emptiness, besides it being inexplicable, it takes it as some sort of substratum or even a creator deity. Naturally, from then on all comparisons it tries to make cannot actually apply to the Buddha's teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: The Big Bang and the Heart Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness is not a substratum whence things emerge, that is a very mistaken interpretation. The Heart Sutra is perfectly clear on this, saying that the five aggregates and emptiness are one and the same. So, turning emptiness into the source of the universe not only contradicts the established cosmology but also the basic principles of Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
pothigai said:
What do you mean by 'consciousness' or 'mind'? They seem to have a meaning equivalent to 'experience' or 'appearance' in this context.

Astus wrote:
By consciousness/mind I simply meant the faculty of being conscious. It is inseparable from experience, as experience is necessarily an instance of consciousness. Similarly, whatever can be called an appearance is an experience. But for the sake of communication experience/consciousness can be divided to subject (mind) and object (mental event). In Mahamudra this is called "spontaneous presence" and "co-emergence", the unity of emptiness and awareness/appearances.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
florin said:
I would think that for the purpose of  establishing the truth of this point one would have to be able to distinguish between an appearing object and an apprehended object because conflating the two can lead to various errors and deviations such as saying that the outer objects are created by mind, etc...

Astus wrote:
Whatever can be called an appearance is an experience. Experience can exist only within consciousness, as besides consciousness there is no awareness of anything, otherwise we would be experiencing things unconsciously. It is indeed a deviation to say that outer objects are created by the mind, since there are no objects outside the mind anywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Okay -- sorry to be thick-headed here -- how does this apply to daily interactions with others? Acquaintances, friends, relatives, significant others, etc? These are statements indicating how things are, but what do we do with this knowledge when we interact?

Astus wrote:
One usual source of suffering is interpreting others' actions as being personally addressed towards oneself. Instead of that one should recognise how one's own reactions, feelings and thoughts originate not from others but one's own mind. Thus the reason to be moved - conceptually and emotionally - by others is cut off, that way eliminating afflictions. It also prevents falling for stereotypes, assumptions and categorisations that one readily projects on people. Ultimately it shows the futility of relying on expectations and opens up one's mind to changing situations, at the same time giving insight into how people's minds function, where their suffering comes from, and hence compassion towards them becomes natural. So, it is not really that there is something in particular to do, but one should fully understand the meaning of the teaching in one's experience, then the effects manifest.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Think good -> do good -> feel good -> see good.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I am very interested in 'mind-only', but I find these teachings pretty hard to interpret on face value. If you are injured or hurt, that has consequences beyond the purely conceptual, doens't it?  How is that 'a mental fabrication'?

Astus wrote:
That area is covered under the topic of "attachment to body", right from the early teachings, as in Satipatthana for instance. It starts with the concept there there is such a thing as a "body", and goes up to "my body is injured". Consider the difference between seeing a stranger hurt, seeing a family member hurt, and feeling your toe hurt. Or the difference between a falling vase and the falling of your favourite vase from grandma.

Wayfarer said:
Same could be said for all manner of experiences, especially painful or injurious ones; we have to deal with the reality of such things. How can they be regarded as mental fabrications?

Astus wrote:
There are a number of teachings on handling pain, e.g.: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.004.than.html and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html. That is, when a sensory impression occurs, it is first of all experienced by the mind. Then it is judged and identified by the mind. Following that one associates the perception with a number of other concepts, thus integrating it in one's general view of oneself and the world. After that intention arises about what to do, and that is followed by action. So, even if one were to say that the initial point of bodily impression is not a mental fabrication, following that they all are.

Wayfarer said:
I can see how it applies to many of the things that people assume are real, or to things that we attribute importance to. I get that, but I can't see how it applies to the raw truth of experience as such.

Astus wrote:
What is the raw truth of experience? Is is important? Is it personal?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 6:13 PM
Title: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. Whatever thing or being we perceive are concepts, mental fabrications.
2. There is no thinker behind concepts, no creator of ideas.
3. While there is no thinker, thoughts come and go on their own.
4. As thoughts come and go on their own, there is nothing to attain or release.

"Now all objective appearances are like water and waves, all are apparitions of the mind and in reality are unestablished. By realizing this, one recognizes all appearances as the mind. By analyzing the essence of the mind in terms of going, staying, and arising, it turns out not to be established as anything. So, like horses and elephants in a dream, it is unestablished in reality. By realizing this, one recognizes that the mind is empty. From the state of emptiness, clarity, and limpidity in unceasing great joy, it spontaneously arises as manifold appearances, like the moon's reflections in water. By realizing this, one recognizes emptiness as spontaneous presence. Thus, from simple spontaneous presence arising and release occur spontaneously, without wavering from immutable great bliss that is clear, empty, spontaneous, and free of elaboration, like a snake that unravels its own knots. By ascertaining this, one recognizes spontaneous presence as self-liberating."

(Wangchuk Dorje: Pointing Out the Dharmakaya, quoted in Spacious Path to Freedom, p 120-121)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
are the Sravakayana and Mahayana vehicles are actually headed to the same destination?

Astus wrote:
Yes. I think it is best illustrated by the five aggregates. They are already impermanent, dependently originated and without self. The difference between delusion and enlightenment regarding that is what results in either attachment and dissatisfaction or freedom and peace. So there are the "five aggregates with attachment" for the deluded, and the "five aggregates" (as they are) for the enlightened. This is true in every Buddhist system I'm aware of.

Lazy_eye said:
Nirvana according to...

Astus wrote:
This is where things can become difficult, as texts and people can use all sorts of poetic language to talk about nirvana for various reasons. To keep it simple, it's just as in the four noble truths: the end of the cause of suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
But the rise of modern historical methods threw a wrench into that, by raising the possibility that a given concept of the Buddha and his teachings can be established (or refuted) independently, i.e. through avenues that are not linked to a tradition. So when a person goes for refuge in the Buddha, who are they taking refuge in? The Buddha who appears in the Dharma and taught, for instance, the Lotus Sutra? Or the Buddha identified by historians? And which Buddha is that, exactly -- Gombrich's Buddha, Harvey's Buddha, Schopen's Buddha?

Astus wrote:
I don't really see that happening. Those who fancy believing in whatever they find appealing are very much unaffected by academic studies. Scientific concepts are rapidly integrated into the weirdest New Age type beliefs. While a few theologians developed hermeneutics, Biblical studies and other more or less science-based methods, the masses don't know and don't care. Even Western practitioners who are mostly educated middle class people are happy to just go regularly to zazen sessions, pujas and empowerments without knowing a thing about Buddhist studies, or even sutras for that matter. As everywhere, the majority is content to listen once a week to some authority figure, then go home and watch TV.

Mahayana is quite clear in that the Buddha is not some ordinary being, or even an extraordinary being, but the ultimate truth/nature of mind. Just see how Vimalakirti educated poor Ananda:

"You should understand, Ānanda, the bodies of the Tathāgatas are bodies of the Dharma, not bodies of longing. The Buddha is the World-honored One, who has transcended the triple world. The Buddha’s body is without flaws, the flaws having been extinguished. The Buddha’s body is unconditioned and does not fit the [conventional] analytic categories. A body such as this—how could it be ill, how could it be vexed?"
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 3, p 95, BDK Edition)

As one way to see the historical evolution of Buddhist traditions and texts is that everyone of various ages realised the same truth of dependent origination and used expressions fit for their environment. Thus, there is really just one vehicle with 84k methods. This is also a good way to eliminate the ubiquitous sectarian biases many get lost in. Mahayana itself is such an ecumenical approach, encompassing every manifestation of the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
I personally find very informative the modern historical scholarship on Buddhism. It can show well how certain concepts changed from one era to the other, and then how other concepts were added or modified in response to that. It also covers the way Buddhists adapted to their cultural and linguistic environments, e.g. the transmission from India to China, and then the sinification of Buddhism. It is also incorrect to think that people in Asia were unaware of textual changes and apocryphal texts, since there were various corrections made during the centuries, and historical verification of texts was among the cardinal issues in debates.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
alpha said:
I am sure this has been said many times before but dzogchen is the path from mind to nature of mind and in that sense is direct and instantaneous.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism teaches moving from ignorance to knowledge, so in that sense it would all be sudden.

alpha said:
So all the Dzogchen practices are there to develop capacity to recognise and integrate with the primordial state  which is already there and not to develop qualities, abilities and various acomplishments or go  through various stages of development since all these aspects are already complete and perfected  in the primordial state.
In other words doing dzogchen practices means developing capacity to recognise what is already there.

Astus wrote:
From the practical perspective it makes no difference at all whether one develops new abilities or lets hidden abilities surface. In both cases it means that one gradually gains new abilities, the only difference is a mostly irrelevant theoretical concept behind it that at best can serve as inspiration.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
MalaBeads said:
I dont think you "get to" the gold, i think you discover you are the gold.

Astus wrote:
That makes no difference, as finding the gold is just a metaphor for the realisation of the nature of mind/world/reality. One still has to arrive at that discovery.

MalaBeads said:
But all that is left behind when you discover your true nature.

Astus wrote:
That discovery should happen at the so called introduction. However, one cannot engage in Dzogchen without that introduction, while at the same time all the teachings and methods come after it. So it doesn't look like as if all that were simply left behind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
The preliminaries are for those who have not yet understood what the primordial state is. Tregchö and thogal are inseparable: sometimes however, tregchö is parsed as "sudden" and thögal as "gradual", but this too is in reality misleading.

Astus wrote:
So, there is a gradual path for those who have not yet attained understanding. And once there is understanding, one should still follow through tregcho and thogal practices, so again, it seems gradual.

Malcolm said:
The long and short of it is that Dzogchen teachings did not fit in the mold of gradual and sudden dichotomy [which is a conversation is only tangentially relevant to Dzogchen due to the conflict in Tibet over Indian and Chinese approaches to Mahāyāna sūtra]. They also do not fit into the mold of ultimate and relative truths. They do not fit into the mold of paths and stages.

Astus wrote:
Sudden means direct access to the ultimate. If there are stages involved in the path, it is necessarily gradual. So, if Dzogchen were just recognising the primordial state, then it would be a sudden method. If preliminaries and follow up practices are also included, it is gradual.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't read Japanese well, and I don't know enough about Shin to speak knowledgeably, but that way of characterizing what is happening now seems a departure from literal Pure Land.

Astus wrote:
There is a fuller explanation of the slogan: http://japanese-religions.jp/publications/assets/JR34%201_a_Porcu.pdf on p 61-64.

"In the English leaflet available at the head temple the meaning of the slogan is explained by dividing it into three stages: Now 1) “‘Now’ is only here while you are reading this leaflet;” 2) Life is living you means that “‘Life’ is constantly, continuously and pervasively in the infinite universe. As conditions emerge, ‘Life’ works as one’s body, mind and spirit.” And finally, 3) “Now, life is living you” is explained as a calling to live one’s life as one is, “regardless if life is going along with [one’s] wish or not—happy or sad.” The constant saying of Amida’s name, the nenbutsu, “is the constant reminder of this calling.”"
(from p 62)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
Like this? https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9897763,135.7596349,3a,75y,270.75h,93.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shD2gk8GHsb1e4xELypKTxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Astus wrote:
There is a sermon on that expression on their website. http://www.higashihonganji.or.jp/sermon/radio/detail22_01.html It should also be noted that the Japanese uses two words, whereas http://jisho.org/search/inochi (命) is the subject and http://jisho.org/search/ikiru (生きる) is the predicate. In the sermon it is explained as 今、南無阿弥陀仏が私を生きている i.e. "Now, Namuamidabutsu is living me." That shows probably quite well how it is not some sort of "sudden teaching", but an expression of total relinquishment to Amitabha, very much in line with the general idea of other-power.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
My understanding is that the Hosso school, (and Kegon), exist in name only.

Astus wrote:
I have no information myself, but https://books.google.com/books?id=1C4qAwAAQBAJ is by a Hosso priest and it is proper Yogacara.

Queequeg said:
My impression of Shin is that its more philosophical and the idea of Pure Land is to an extent treated metaphorically.

Astus wrote:
There are various interpretations, similarly to how some may deny rebirth and still claim to be Buddhists. So perhaps it's better to just stay with the canonical works (Shinran and maybe Rennyo) or identify the sources of various views.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
The three series are a literary division.
"Preliminaries, trekcho, togal and its visions" are not stages or levels.

Astus wrote:
So those literary divisions do not mean difference in the teachings, one superior to the other, etc?

If those are not stages/levels, then what? Gradual instructions maybe?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
Which levels, stages and practices?

Astus wrote:
Semde, longde, menngagde. Preliminaries, trekcho, togal and its visions. And probably there are others associated with or included in Dzogchen.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
Right, but that is still not a Sudden path. If you're a bad person, you're born in a lotus calyx and stay there for a time until your bad causes are exhausted - a purgatory of sorts. Then you emerge and continue purification and perfection. Its one life, but still the Gradual path.

Astus wrote:
Yes, they maintain the bodhisattva stages to follow. Another gradualist teaching is the Hosso school (Japanese Dharmalaksana, aka Yogacara).

Queequeg said:
Shinran (as little as I know), in contrast to Honen, seems to have more deeply drawn on Tientai theory. Honen's interpretation is literal and seems to push Tientai aside.

Astus wrote:
I have not seen Shinran actually diverting from Honen's interpretation of what happens in Sukhavati.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
Shabkar Natsog Rangdrol wrote:

Rongzom Pandita wrote:

Astus wrote:
If there are no stages and practices, what are all those levels, stages, and practices in Dzogchen?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
Who said the meaning of Prajñāpāramitā and Dzogchen were different? I merely said that in Dzogchen there were no caveats.

Astus wrote:
As you wrote, "Tibetan Buddhists in general interpret all sūtra paths as gradual paths". So, while there are five paths and ten bhumis, a bodhisattva does not get stuck by such conceptual fabrications.

"No caveats" here would mean that Dzogchen plays with open cards. How does it translate to the topic of gradual teachings?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Do you have a better way to approach this, Astus? I am an old dog always open to new tricks.

Astus wrote:
In the area of skilful means what qualifies better is whether it brings about realisation or not. That depends on the audience. As you well know, even a finger or a no-finger can work.

Otherwise, there is no need for lot of explanations. One just has to see what is "right in front of one's eyes", that is, that all experiences in the six fields change moment to moment, and even one moment cannot be grasped. Therefore, whatever's believed to be a reality is only a conceptual creation. Nevertheless, conceptual creations follow a certain pattern, that is, they are interdependent (network of associations).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Innermost Great Potentiality states:

The Soaring Garuda states:

The Cuckoo of Vidyā states:

Astus wrote:
"no suffering, origination, cessation or path; no gnosis, no acquisition and no non-acquisition. ... Due to non-acquisition, the bodhisattva, having relied on Perfect Wisdom, dwells without mental obstruction. From the non-existence of mental obstruction, he is fearless, he overcomes inverted erroneous views, and ultimately reaches Nirvāṇa."
( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4-3ivsK5Q6MMWI3OGFjODctZTQ1Ni00NzU5LWJiOTgtMjdiNWM1YWE4N2Nk/view )

"if the bodhisattva refrains from taking up the practice of any particular dharma, because he does not apprehend any dharma whatsoever, he may thereby succeed in realizing prajñāpāramitā. How can this be the case? All practices are essentially false and unreal."
(Nagarjuna: Realization of Prajñāpāramitā through no Seizing on Practices, in http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-15.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
But not this lifetime. And birth in Sukhavati does not guarantee Sudden awakening, but rather infinite life and conditions conducive to awakening and complete absence of obstacles.

Astus wrote:
Not in this lifetime. But in the next single lifetime one can attain enlightenment, even if that time is fairly long. Although it is of little or no concern how long one stays in Sukhavati. And since in this life one can be guaranteed of birth and birth definitely brings about complete liberation, some Pure Land teachers were right to say that even now one is similar to a bodhisattva on the stage of no return.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
No. "Sudden" does not apply to Dzogchen, neither does "gradual." That's like asking the question, "Is a bar of gold suddenly gold, or gradually gold."

Astus wrote:
That's like saying Dzogchen lacks the path to liberation, while that is not actually true. In other words, one can get to that bar of gold either through the process of digging, clearing and melting (or something http://www.miningandmetallurgy.com/gold/assets/images/Gold_Technology_and_Gold_Production_Plant.PNG ); or by discovering it in its pure form. The former is the gradual, the latter is the sudden way. It is of no help to say that the gold is already gold regardless of its location or information of its whereabouts.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 5:05 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
No caveats in Dzogchen...just saying...

Astus wrote:
Do you mean it is explicitly gradual or sudden?

(Sam van Schaik has a https://books.google.hu/books?id=0Tg6AwAAQBAJ on that subject.)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
PorkChop said:
I know you're probably not looking for Pure Land input, but my impression is that Jodo Shu is more of a gradual teaching and Shin is more of a sudden teaching. Jodo Shu teaches the 9 grades of Pure Land birth straight from the sutras - most notably in the story of the samurai Kumagai Naozane wanting to be born in the highest grade so he could begin Bodhisattva work as soon as possible. Shinran talks about sudden, horizontal transcendence in the Kyogyoshinsho, thus setting the tone for Jodo Shin Shu.

Astus wrote:
The idea of enlightenment in one lifetime is present in all the Pure Land teachings, because once one is born in Sukhavati buddhahood is guaranteed.

"Suppose we have a worm, born inside a stalk of a bamboo. To escape, it can take the hard way and crawl "vertically" all the way to the top of the stalk. Alternatively, it can poke a hole near its current location and escape "horizontally" into the big, wide world. The horizontal escape, for sentient beings, is to seek rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha."
(Parable 62 in http://www.ymba.org/books/thus-have-i-heard-buddhist-parables-and-stories/parables )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
It is a little hard for folks to fathom who are used to the "common sense" human idea that something can only be found by looking for it (rather than by transcending looking vs. not looking), attained by striving (rather than striving and non-striving at once), either yes or no, etc etc.

Astus wrote:
Teachings are meant to be read, studied and understood. Just like any other writings. Buddhism is not an exception. But to say that just because at first Spinoza or Kierkegaard seems difficult, doesn't mean one should suspend thinking and achieve some special state of mind. Zongmi was of the opinion that Chan is the summary of the Indian sutras and treatises, intended specifically for a Chinese audience to make things easier (see: Zongmi on Chan, p 105). However, already if we move on from the Tang era to the Song, once common colloquial expressions become obscure, and of course it is even more mysterious to non-Chinese. While it is a fine literary achievement to be able to reproduce sophisticated ancient East Asian word plays, it is likely more productive to use today's language, that way one can uphold the maxim of pointing directly.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
Let me modify my question - among active, living traditions?

Astus wrote:
Practically they all teach a gradual path. It's just that the https://books.google.hu/books?id=LyfysMjKooEC is naturally more popular.

If the unwise Bodhisattva counts the kotis of aeons,
And has the notion that it is long until the full attainment of enlightenment, he is bound to suffer,
And for a long time he will be suffering while moving unto Dharma.
Therefore he is inferior in the perfection of vigour, and essentially indolent.
(Ratnagunasamcayagatha, ch 30, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm said:
Tibetan Buddhists in general interpret all sūtra paths as gradual paths, generally considering other interpretations incorrect and baseless.

Astus wrote:
Only in order to legitimise their own sudden version of Vajrayana as superior. Similarly, Chinese schools have categorised gradual teachings to a lower position. E.g. the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#Five_Periods.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Monlam Tharchin,

Here are my comments to Jundo's comments. What do you think?

jundo cohen said:
One Universal Virtue is to drop (by non-dropping-dropping) all waves of karma, impendiments and thoughts of "true or false" into and as this Ocean, Repent/Atonement as At-One-ment, sitting upright as True Aspect. All thoughts as waves just constantly non-arise and flow.

Astus wrote:
Thoughts are just thoughts. Don't imagine them something more or less, then they come and go without hindrance. And even if one tries to turn thoughts into something more or less, they come and go without hindrance. That is, they are impermanent no matter what.

jundo cohen said:
No object of thought and what thought to object to, not two. What "Buddha" can be thought or not thought and is not all thoughts? Sitting as Buddha is precisely Buddhasticly Buddhasting.

Astus wrote:
All thoughts are Buddha (impermanent no matter what), thus sitting is Buddha-sitting, and "Buddha-sitting" is the Buddha sitting as Buddha.

jundo cohen said:
Sitting as Buddha is thinking no object. Apart from sitting, there is no mind and no Buddha at all. Apart from Buddha, there is no mind of sitting. Sitting as Buddha is identical to the sitting Buddha. To seek the mind or to seek for sitting is to seek for Buddha. The trick is to seek by not seeking, finding what cannot be found. The Form of Sitting is without form, the appearance of sitting lacks any appearance or in and out. What mind is there to calm? Never mind! In simply sitting, no internal or external to grasp or arise, all is without form or discrimination right in and as all form and discrimination ... nirvana is samsara, no nirvana no samsara from the startless start. The sitting mind disappears and re-emerges, what is there to indicate when all the world is free of directions in the pivot point of sitting? Sitting this, body-mind are none other than the real and true Tathagata.

Astus wrote:
That is: don't fuss about sitting. There is nothing to make up or discover, as things are already such. Such, that is, cannot be grasped. Cannot be grasped, because there is nothing to grasp. There is nothing to grasp, because they come and go naturally.

jundo cohen said:
How does one lay down without laying down? Open the Hand of Thought. There was never a thing to pick up from the start, nor a thing in need of letting go.

Astus wrote:
Letting go is not an act, it is in the recognition of things being such. And whether recognised or not, things are such anyway.

jundo cohen said:
Dropping all thought of good and evil, attraction and aversion, we do not observe (in our way) where thoughts arise or go, but simply do not grasp them as they come and go non-coming-non-going. False thoughts have no self-nature, and the same for true thoughts. There is no thought. Thought-no-thought. As human beings, we do our best (we have no choice so long as we are living beings in a complex world) to live in a world of thoughts, both true and false, doing our best to be free of the latter and to nurture the former (doing our best to be free of greed, anger and divisive thinking, seeking to nurture generosity, peace and unity). Nevertheless, all through all thoughts are no thought from the start. There is stillness to be heard at the heart of the greatest noise. A light shines, illuminating both false and true thoughts.

Astus wrote:
Things are such anyway, so we can freely do our best to be the force of compassionate buddhahood.

jundo cohen said:
Think about it! Or you don't. Yet Thinking-Non-Thinking It-No-It You-No-You

Astus wrote:
The X-notX formula of inseparable appearance-emptiness. That is, there are thoughts, just don't make a fuss.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 6:20 PM
Title: Re: Nature of mind vs. soul theory.
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is this misleading way of talking about a nature to be discovered or perceived, and even more misleading is the talk about manifestations of the nature. But actually it's like in the Heart Sutra, that the five aggregates are empty, and that emptiness is the nature of the aggregates, and the aggregates themselves are what the mind-body is. So, the emptiness of the nature is that there is no substance in the aggregates, luminosity is that there are aggregates as experience, and their unity is that experience has no substance. Then one can go on considering how the lack of an essence is eternal, especially since it's not a thing, and so on.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: pure land buddhism as anachronistic concept
Content:
PorkChop said:
Sentence is self-contradictory and basically shoots down your entire argument up till now.

in fact the whole passage establishes; without a doubt, that there were Pure Land school(s) exclusively devoted to Amitabha. The OP never mentioned lineage, nor Nianfo, merely Pure Land, which is defined by exclusive devotion to Amitabha and the exclusive goal of rebirth in his Pure Land.

Astus wrote:
My argument has not been that there was no Pure Land Buddhism in China, since they have invented the whole thing and it is still the most popular teaching there. What I have been saying is that there was no independent organisation established, unlike in Japan, and that's what the quote talks about as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: pure land buddhism as anachronistic concept
Content:
Astus wrote:
Pure Land devotionalism could include a diversity of practices for a variety of purposes: for example, meditation on the heroic vows of Amitabha, visualization of his features, cultivation of one's desire to be reborn in the Pure land, visualization of the Pure land, invoking the name of Amitabha either to be reborn in the Pure land or as a means to calm the mind as preparation for other forms of meditation, etc. By way of contrast, what is unique about the outlook of Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao is the force with which they singled out Pure Land devotionalism as the only practice needed and available to Buddhists of that time which could guarantee salvation. T'an-luan and Tao-ch'o both were plagued by a lack of confidence in the effectiveness with which they could master other forms of traditional Buddhist training. T'an-luan distinguished between the "difficult path" and the "easy path of the Pure Land," while Tao-ch'o divided the "path of the sages" from the "path of the Pure land." In fact, the An-lo-chi of Tao-ch'o primarily consists of an extended argument demonstrating the appropriateness and necessity of Pure Land devotion as the only effective practice because of the trauma of the times and the decrease in man's capacities. Thus, the Shansi Pure land thinkers were concerned to stress the differences between Pure land practice and other methods, even though Chinese Pure Land never rejected these other methods as harmful in the way that occurred among Japanese Pure Land thinkers.
The ascendancy of Pure Land devotion as a necessary, sufficient, all-consuming and finally inclusive religious orientation is an extreme development in China. Even at its height, Shansi Pure Land activity never radically separated from a monastic, philosophical, and meditational base, nor did it form a distinctive institutional structure or formalized methods of succession, as it did in Japan. Chinese Pure Land sectarianism was neither based on an exclusive organization nor limited to particular religious practices, but was a loosely-knit association of those who were committed to single-minded devotion to Amitabha and rebirth in his Pure Land as the only guaranteed source of salvation. Although the names in the lineages highlight individual leaders, they also show that the separatist movement existed for a relatively brief period of time in Chinese Buddhist history, principally extending from the sixth to the ninth centuries. Approximately, it was during these centuries that Chinese Buddhism generally was specializing in many different directions and all the major "schools" were formed.
It should be emphasized, therefore, that Chinese Pure land thinkers never went to the extreme of the Japanese Pure Land movement which actively rejected other practices as detracting from reliance on Amitabha. In China nien-fo (nembutsu) was decisive for salvation but not exclusive, and Pure Land thinkers always assumed that it would be supplemented by other forms of meditation and purifying practices. A good illustration of this difference between China and Japan is the fate of Hsuan-chung-ssu, the birthplace of Pure Land sectarianism in China. Unlike Japanese Buddhism or Christianity in the West, Buddhist schools in China are lines of practice and thought, not institutionally-strong, property-holding denominations. Accordingly, a monastery took its identity from the activities of its members, and especially its abbot. Because of its local autonomy, any monastery could include a number of "lines" or Buddhist schools, or change from one to the other as the attitudes of people changed. Accordingly, Michihata discovered that by the late T'ang Dynasty the Hsüan-chung-ssu was most famous for its ordination platform and expertise in rituals and precepts, and had become known as a Vinaya Monastery (lü-ssu). At other times, because of the prominence of its meditation hall, it was called a Ch'an Monastery (ch'an-ssu). In the early Sung, after the destructive losses suffered by Buddhism during persecution and war, the Hsüan-chung-ssu became active as a center for making metal buddha-images. Thus, the "ten-thousand practices" (wan-hsing) subordinated by Tao-ch'o as inadequate, which were renamed the "mixed practices" (tsa-hsing) and again deemphasized by Shan-tao, became the main focus of attention in the eyes of later generations as the rich symphony of Chinese religious eclecticism supplemented and absorbed the single sound of chanting Amitabha's name.

( https://books.google.com/books?id=tztMqPBReAYC, p 144-146)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Astus wrote:
An example of how Zen practice and mindfulness looks fairly the same.

Watch https://youtu.be/ooypUuwXf7Y?t=44 (2 mins) first.

Then compare the followings from a discussion in a Zen group:

A quote from Dan Leighton initiated the discussion:

"Zazen is not about something else - when we sit, in our regular daily practice, we just sit, it's not about reaching some other state of being or mind, or experience, or understanding in the future. Just this is it. We see what's actually happening in this body/mind here and now, quite apart from our stories about who we are or what the world is or what we want to get from practising - it's not about something else - we're not practising to get some other place in the future - the point is just to enjoy the next breath, or the breath that's happening right now. To appreciate our uprightness or to appreciate our expression of Buddha's murdra right now. ... It's ACTUALLY this... we sit upright like buddha. and that's the point, we are not sitting to get something else, if that was the meaning of our zazen then it would just be another business transaction. It's hard to get this because that's how we think of our lives, we think we're doing something to get something else out of it. "

So I asked how it is different from blankness. Someone replied:

"this is not about 'blankness' this is about dynamically allowing ourselves to be present in every instant. It is very much part of the bodhisattva path. This was part of a talk on dogen and the lotus sutra - talking about the part of the sutra which discusses the myriad bodhisattvas coming up from under the earth - he quotes Dogen saying "the family style of all buddhas and ancestors is to first arouse the vow to save all living beings by removing suffering and providing joy. Only this family style is inexhaustibly bright and clear". 
The things you bring up about feeling hungry and eating, or being mindful of others is not irrelevant at all, but during zazen... the most important thing is zazen. 
I'm reminded of a thing Taisen Deshimaru infamously said "When you're doing zazen, don't think about sex, when you're having sex, don't think about zazen""

Another person's explanation:

"When you finish Zazen, take the Zafu with you. 
I was once told that sitting is like a launching pad, once we get up from the Zafu, keep yourself in the buddhas space and being present all day. 
Also, when you practice Gongfu tea you must be totally present in every single thing you do or you'll ruin your tea. Every single movement and gesture is vitally important. Bring the gongfu practice into every action in waking life is a lure expression of being "this just is" So, when doing gongfu, practice Gongfu. When taking a shit, shit gongfu. When brushing your teeth, brush gongfu. When eating, eat gongfu. When chanting, chant gongfu. When sitting, sit gongfu. When frak, frak gongfu."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: pure land buddhism as anachronistic concept
Content:
PorkChop said:
Depends if you take Shan-Tao's teachings of Exclusive Single Practice seriously or not.

Astus wrote:
The Chinese monastic system is Vinaya based, followed by the way political forces influenced its operation. So even Chan and Tiantai were not as exclusive as in Japan, although they did establish a loose organisational structure based on lineage families. That resulted in today's situation where almost every monastery is nominally Chan. Pure Land practices did not form the basis of a similar monastic organisation, and it should be recognised that various forms of nianfo are ubiquitous. Monks and nuns have always enjoyed a relative freedom in what studies and practices they pursued, so even if one happened to reside in a monastery led by an abbot with a specific affiliation, they were not hindered by that.

PorkChop said:
Most everyone else who's actually read Shan-Tao's writings has repeated that he promoted exclusive practice. There's a http://purelandbuddhism.org/ that solely follows Shan-Tao's writings in endorsing exclusive practice and 13th Pure Land Patriarch Yin Kuang references Shan-Tao as well when endorsing not mixing Pure Land practice with other methods.

Astus wrote:
While the list of the so called 13 Chinese PL patriarchs include Shandao, it begins with Huiyuan, who emphasised visualisation, and includes people like Yongming Yanshou, who was more like a well educated bodhisattva monk with an all around knowledge of Mahayana, Lianchi Zhuhong, who was similarly an educated monastic proficient in the teachings, Chan, and Pure Land, just like Ouyi Zhixu. They were definitely not exclusivists. And that is what you can find from modern luminaries as well like Yinshun and Shengyan.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: pure land buddhism as anachronistic concept
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems a fairly common knowledge among those who study Chinese Buddhism now that the whole sectarianism of Japanese Buddhism has been projected on China, including not only PL but Chan as well. If you look at the four big schools of Taiwanese Buddhism you find that they  are all inclusive of the "eight schools". Also, there has never actually been an independent Chinese PL church ever.

May check some works by Robert Sharf, like http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf2003.%20TP%20Chan%20and%20Pure%20Land.pdf and https://books.google.com/books?id=pSazfSorJzgC.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As a practice without teacher, http://www.ymba.org/books/fundamentals-meditation-practice/varieties-chan recommends the http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v2/v2p2-1p5.htm:

"The practices of The Maha-Chih-Kuan method are thorough, assuredly, but are too subtle to be done without the aid of an accomplished teacher. However, until such time as the reader may discover such a teacher, he might practice the following effective method of observing the mind. Sit comfortably in the lotus position or in any other position that is suitable for you. Lay down all things, and even give up the thought of laying everything down. In this way, thinking of neither good nor evil, close your eyes gently and lightly observe where your thoughts seem to issue from. This permits you passively to be aware of your false thoughts as they suddenly come and just as suddenly go, neither grasping at them nor driving them away; thus, in time, you can come to understand profoundly that false thought  has no  self-nature (is empty)  and that it is originally void. When false thought is then illuminated by your mind, a stillness becomes evident, which then becomes suchness. Then if another thought suddenly arises, using the same approach, just observe lightly to see where the thought seems to come from. Do this at least once a day for at least half an hour."

Gishin in http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/essentials-vinaya-tradition-and-collected-teachings-tendai-lotus-school writes that it is the practice recommended for also for lay followers, while the other three samadhis are primarily for monastics. And as you may recognise, that is practically the same as zazen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
to delve into Zen practice.

Astus wrote:
While I agree that Uchiyama's books are quite lucid and easy to follow, it should be kept in mind that he represents his own interpretation of one approach of Soto Zen. If you want for instance to familiarise yourself with Chan, i.e. Chinese Buddhism, there are other sources you may want to look into. For a start there is http://www.ymba.org/books/fundamentals-meditation-practice (or in http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/chanmed1.pdf ) by Ting Chen. That teaching shows very well how in Chinese Buddhism the methods of Tiantai, Chan and Pure Land are equally used and they form an organic whole. A similar teaching nicely summed up by the Vietnamese teacher Thich Thanh Tu can be found on the pages 41-58 in http://www.thienvientuquang.org/kinhsach/english/KeysToBuddhism.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Multiple or Single Practices in Soto Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dogen says that it is only zazen that has been transmitted by the patriarchs. This idea expresses that not only is there a buddha-mind but it is manifest in actuality. Even more strongly: buddha-mind is actuality and there is nothing to find beyond what is apparent. Dogen stated clearly that he meant to transmit the whole package of Buddhism from China to Japan, as he had seen it there. It would be perhaps better to say that his view was holistic, considering the complete religious culture. It should be noted that while his time in Tiantong under Rujing is important, he spent significantly more time travelling around.

When zazen is highlighted as the single practice, it is naturally a huge simplification. Like everything, zazen can only have any meaning within a context. If it is removed from that environment and put into another, inevitably it gains a new meaning. At the same time, with asserting that zazen is the bloodline of buddhas, it is stating that, no matter what, if one knows zazen one knows what the main message is and the rest is optional. Dogen was aware that customs in India were different from that in China, and Japan did not completely copy everything from China either. In fact, Dogen could be critical with Chinese Buddhism, like in the case of the use of toothbrush instead of twigs.

The reason that the question of "multiple or single practice" does not really apply to zazen is that it is not a practice. Zazen is not something to be perfected, developed or understood. It is buddha being buddha. It is not one or many. It is just oneself being oneself. Then whether one follows a monastic lifestyle of the Kamakura era or something else is quite another matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"A student preparing for an entrance examination wants to pass; no one wants to fail. Yet the world in which there is no success or failure is the best. We cannot expect such a world in Japan today. It is possible only in the world of zazen. However, there is a group of people who try to put pass and fail into the world of zazen through satori. If you attain satori you succeed, if not you fail. This attitude has nothing to do with the buddha-dharma; it is samsara. 
We only have to sit with the self that is only the self, without comparing it to others. It is not necessary at all to visit a Zen master to ask if one is enlightened or not. That is really a stupid question. First of all, to practice the buddha-dharma is to live out the self that is only the self. The truth is that one always has to live out the self that is only the self in any situation, so it is impossible to bring up the question of whether one succeeds or fails."

(Kosho Uchiyama: The Wholehearted Way, p 118)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the path perspective: Samsara is grasping things as if they were real. Nirvana is the elimination of the wrong view of substance.

From the correct view perspective: There is no substance within phenomena, thus grasping is based on ignorance. It is understanding how phenomena actually are that ignorance is eliminated, there is no new state to create or attain.

Therefore: understanding appearances incorrectly is samsara, understanding it correctly is nirvana. Samsara and nirvana are not two separate realms, so it can be equally said that all appearances are already nirvana and that nirvana is samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Multiple or Single Practices in Soto Zen
Content:
DGA said:
Meaning is necessarily limitation; meaning is built on a system of differentiation (x is not y, up is not down, cat is not dog).  The idea of meaning being without limitations / differentiations, or "boundless meaning," seems confounding.

Astus wrote:
Not explaining what Jundo means, just replying to that confounding expression: http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra20.html. That sutra basically equates the realisation of prajnaparamita with immeasurable meaning, because "Bodhisattvas next observe intently that all dharmas arise and perish instantly, as thoughts, one after another, never stay. They also observe the instantaneous birth, stay, change, and death of all dharmas. Having made these observations, Bodhisattvas then penetrate the capacities, natures, and desires of sentient beings. Because their capacities, natures, and desires are immeasurable, Bodhisattvas pronounce immeasurable Dharmas. As the Dharmas pronounced are immeasurable, their meanings are also immeasurable. The immeasurable meanings are born from one dharma. This one dharma is no appearance, which is not apart from appearance." Since zazen is thoughts coming and going unhindered, it is no different from the "Dharma Door of Immeasurable Meaning".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
As for what I'm calling Zen, I'm using Kosho Uchiyama's book Opening the Hand of Thought as my primary source. In it, he describes One Zazen, Two Practices (vow & repentance) and Three Minds (joyful, parental, magnanimous).

Astus wrote:
In Chinese Pure Land you find the four types of buddha-remembrance (四種念佛), and among them the real-mark (i.e. ultimate) buddha-remembrance (實相念佛). See a brief explanation http://www.ymba.org/books/buddhism-wisdom-faith-pure-land-principles-and-practice/essentials-pure-land/5-practice/buddha.

The Zen explanation of that practice is from Daoxin, the fourth patriarch, in his "Fundamental Expedient Teachings for Calming the Mind Which Attains Enlightenment" (T85n2837p1286c19), who sums up the definition of yixin sanmei as "the mind which is aware of the Buddha is the Buddha, whereas [the mind which] does false thinking is the ordinary person" (tr. David W. Chappell), based on the http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html. After that he quotes the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue (T09n0277p0393b10-11): "The ocean of impediment of all karmas / Is produced from one's false imagination. / Should one wish to repent of it / Let him sit upright and meditate on the true aspect [of reality]." (tr. Bunno Kato) And here meditation on the true aspect is "念實相", i.e. (using the translation above) remembering/thinking real-mark. Further on repentance, or rather formless repentance, there is the 6th chapter of the Platform Sutra. Then Daoxin (tr. Chappell) continues:

"The Dapinjing [couldn't find what it actually refers to, but an almost identical teaching is found in the first volume of the Fozangjing T15n0653p785a25] says: "No object of thought (wu-suo-nian) means to be thinking on Buddha (nianfo)."
Why is it called wu-suo-nian? It means the mind which is "thinking on Buddha" is called thinking on no object (wu-suo-nien). Apart from mind there is no Buddha at all. Apart from Buddha there is no mind at all. Thinking on Buddha is identical to the thinking mind. To seek the mind means to seek for the Buddha.
Why is this? Consciousness is without form. The Buddha lacks any outer appearance. When you understand this truth, it is identical to calming the mind (anxin). If you always are thinking on Buddha, grasping [onto externals] does not arise, [and everything] disappears and is without form, and thinking is impartial without [false] discrimination. To enter into this state, the mind which is thinking on Buddha disappears, and further it is not even necessary to indicate [the mind as Buddha]. When you see this, your mind is none other than the body of the real and true nature of the Tathagata."

Uchiyama's zazen is letting go of thoughts, what Dogen calls hishiryo, what the Platform Sutra calls no-thought (wunian). It is the same as real-mark nianfo. Not anything complicated. But whether one manages to abide by not abiding anywhere is another question.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Multiple or Single Practices in Soto Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
If we want to go to the essence that encompasses all, then even seated meditation is redundant. At the same time, what is generally perceived and transmitted are the various practices not only of sitting but many others, like funerary rituals for instance. Dogen himself was quite thoroughgoing in taking a large number of elements of Buddhism to Japan from precepts to architecture.

"The fact that neither the general public nor the Zen priests or parish members actually practice zazen in large numbers has become a truism amongst scholars of Zen Buddhism in Japan. According to surveys conducted by the two largest Zen sects, Sōtōshū and Rinzaishū (as represented by Myōshinji), zazen is not a widespread practice"
(Jørn Borup: Easternization of the East?, in Journal of Global Buddhism Vol. 16 (2015):79)

"It feels strange to say this as a Soto Zen monk, but I’ve always been uncomfortable with this all-or-nothing focus on zazen. Maybe it’s the implicit suggestion that it’s a return to what the ancient teachers (Dogen, or Bodhidharma, or maybe even the Buddha himself) really advocated. But more than that, I think it’s my feeling (biased, I confess) that it’s not really challenging. The discipline of zazen is challenging, of course. Zazen itself is hard work; coming back to it is hard work. But too often, the rhetoric around zazen-only practice feels like wish fulfillment: this is why I got into Zen, and this is something I like, so this must be the only thing that has any value or carries any authenticity. Even if every cell in your body resists doing zazen, philosophically, at least for many, I think it’s easy to get on board with it. Other aspects of the tradition do challenge us, directly, on a philosophical level: a hierarchical student/teacher dynamic, bowing, ceremonies as expressions of “offering,” robes…. It’s easy to look at those practices that make us itch a little and label them as “extra.”"
( http://nyoho.com/2013/06/11/the-zen-toolbox/ )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Matt J said:
For the same reason that cybersex isn't the same as sex. Online interaction as we have it simply isn't as immersive as real-time, face-to-face confrontation.

Astus wrote:
That might be so for Rinzai teachers like Eido Tai Shimano and Joshu Sasaki. But otherwise it may still be manageable, even if not exactly the same, since it is not a requirement to have physical contact normally.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Matt J said:
That you think it can be done online, for one, and calling it a "discussion".

Astus wrote:
Why couldn't it be done online? As for calling it a discussion, I don't see it as anything worse than interview, and maybe even better in some aspects - an exchange of expressions.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Matt J said:
Evidently, you've never experienced dokusan with a Rinzai teacher.

Astus wrote:
What makes that evident?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
DGA said:
Are you speaking from experience, Astus?

Astus wrote:
Experience of what? Having a discussion with a teacher?

BTW, I was referring primarily to how Japanese Rinzai and Western Zen communities like including interviews in their programmes. Although probably it could be done online as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 6:19 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen pointless without a teacher?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What do you call Zen?

There are certainly some elements where you need someone you recognise as a teacher, mostly to utilise the benefits of having discussions with a wise person.

Otherwise, if by Zen you mean counting your breath while seated, or other methods, you may learn them from various sources, including Pure Land teachers, especially those of Chinese and Vietnamese origin, since there isn't really such a sectarian separation in those traditions.

And if you call Zen the "buddha-nature" or "seeing nature", it cannot be taught even by the Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 25th, 2015 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen's authenticity lies in the mind-transmission. That means: "To not attain a single dharma is called the transmission of the mind. If you comprehend this mind, then there is no mind and no dharma." (Huangbo, in Zen Texts, p 36, BDK Edition) Practically it means that the personal experience of the nature of life is what validates the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That nature of the world is universally understood among Buddhists as interdependent and empty. I am unaware of any tradition disagreeing with that. So it seems fair to say that what is labelled as the fundamental view has not been lost. As for everything else, they are skilful means to help beings attain liberation, i.e. realising the nature of appearances. Zen, similarly to other Mahayana schools, advocates freely using various means, as it should be clear from the many stories preserved in the tradition. In the early texts themselves the Buddha is quite flexible in how he taught his disciples, using their inclinations to introduce them to the correct understanding. Because the methods are virtually unlimited, it is difficult to say how anything - especially when found in a traditional setting - is not authentic.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 24th, 2015 at 6:19 AM
Title: Zazen Easier Than Nenbutsu
Content:
Astus wrote:
If you practice zazen because you want to become plucky and courageous like Saigo Takamori or Katsu Kaishu (Japanese heroes), your attitude is totally different from the aspiration, practice, awakening, and nirvana of the buddhas and ancestors. After all, as a foundation for determined faith, there must be jijuyu zanmai, which actualizes the reality of life through just doing zazen. In that sense, the teaching of other-power (tariki) of Shinran Shonin is a good attitude for faith. It is grounded in buddha-dharma.
However, there are a lot of people who are deeply deluded and cannot enter the faith of other-power. For those people, just sitting zazen is the easiest practice, because as soon as they sit zazen right now, right here, the world of zazen will open. Yet even if you sit zazen, it can be overturned into self-power (jiriki) practice, depending exclusively upon your attitude toward zazen. Realizing this thoroughly, you must practice zazen on the basis of letting go of thought.

(Kosho Uchiyama: The Wholehearted Way, p 90-91)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 23rd, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: What is superstition?
Content:
DGA said:
if a practice or a view looks like a superstition to you

Astus wrote:
Likely most things that are culturally foreign look superstitious. Calling something a superstition is a roundabout way of rejecting its validity. But there is more to it than that, since people are also curious of strange things.

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. ... And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God."
(1 Kings 18:21, 24)

That is, one's idea is invalid because it lacks effective power. Such a definition of valid perception is known within Buddhism, and that's how belief in rituals and charms are rejected in favour of karma. Also, within the context of enlightenment, all wrong views are superstitious, as they don't bring about liberation.

DGA said:
then the best course of action is to try to understand it from the perspective of the one who holds that view or undertakes that practice.

Astus wrote:
Most likely we cannot understand another's motivations, since that includes that person's entire mental and physical conditioning. It is always possible to come up with various explanations from our own perspective, but those are only good for placating our original rejection of unfamiliar phenomena.

DGA said:
insisting on cutting away or dismissing beliefs of past or present masters, such as the excellent Soto Zen masters described in the link at the top of this thread, is itself a kind of superstitious act--a belief in one's own capacity of reason without adequately recognizing the limits of that reason.

Astus wrote:
There is this romantic idea that something old is valuable simply because it is old. And there is also the modernist idea that something old is necessarily wrong because it is old. Instead of discriminating based on temporal biases, there are other criteria one can use to discern the value of any given activity. The Buddha's recommendation is to distinguish what is wholesome and what is unwholesome ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.078.than.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 23rd, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: What is superstition?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"What is the clinging to mere rules and ritual? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification: this is called the clinging to mere rules and ritual."
( http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_u.htm )

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower. Which five? He/she does not have conviction [in the Buddha's Awakening]; is unvirtuous; is eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts protective charms & ceremonies, not kamma; and searches for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings there first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.175.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: How can one's progress be tested?
Content:
avisitor said:
What does the progress in meditation have to do with the progress in the Buddhist path?
Are the two related in such a way as to be able to use one to gauge the other?

Astus wrote:
As amanitamusc wrote, it depends on the type of meditation used.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Bowing.
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Master Seongcheol once again began a pilgrimage participating in retreats at numerous meditation halls around the country. It was around this time, in a valley in front of Anjeong-sa Monastery in South Gyeongsangnam-do Province, that he constructed the Cheonjegul Grotto and led the believers who had come to see him in a practice of doing three-thousand prostrations. No matter who came to see him, young or old, business magnates or government officials, before he would do anything with them they first had to do three-thousand prostrations in front of the Buddha. The reason he ordered every one of his followers without exception to partake in this practice originated in the desire to get each of them to see themselves directly and to cultivate their minds to remove their own impurities. It was within the physical suffering felt in the knees and backs during the constant bending of the prostrations that this process could naturally take place."
( http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=1030&wr_id=52 )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 21st, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: How can one's progress be tested?
Content:
zenman said:
How can one's progress in meditation and in the buddhist path be tested?

Astus wrote:
If it is a specific method of meditation, there are stages of progress. You may consult your meditation instructor and the relevant meditation manuals.

Progress on the Buddhist path has a number of traditional measurements already mentioned.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11885


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 21st, 2015 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: What is Buddhism?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
Is Buddism simply discernment?  And all the kindness and compassion flows there after?  For example, is there Buddhism 3000 years ago before the Dharma as we know it?

Astus wrote:
It cannot be simply discernment, since there are trainings to do before and realisations to attain after. Thus there are the threefold training, noble eightfold path, six paramitas, etc. Various good qualities (e.g. kindness) are both parts of training and results as well. Buddhism is the path to liberation, something that must be revealed. Although the path has always existed, there was no knowledge of such a path before Siddhartha (within the generally known past, not counting various buddhas).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: This is why you need a teacher!
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are instructional videos.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


This is the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6G9GVKpK20.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Zen is No Secret
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Also, a bit of a comment on the the emptiness of the Bhumis perhaps, Astus? How did Chinul otherwise comment on the Bhumis?

Astus wrote:
From Cleary's translation:

"If you can practice this moment to moment, not neglecting to be attentive, seeing to it that concentration and insight are equally sustained, then love and hate will naturally lighten and thin out, while compassion and wisdom will naturally increase in clarity, sinful deeds will naturally end, while meritorious actions will naturally progress."

Jinul accords with the Hwaeom teachings of the first arousal of bodhicitta, the attainment of the first level of faith, includes all the attainments through the entire path of the 52 levels, so in terms of wisdom one is equal to the buddhas, but then one must gradually manifest the buddha qualities until perfection. This goes back to Guifeng Zongmi, who clarified this teaching of sudden enlightenment with gradual cultivation as the meaning.

"As for gradual practice, having suddenly realized fundamental essence, no different from Buddha, beginningless mental habits are hard to get rid of all at once. Therefore one cultivates practice based on enlightenment, gradually cultivating the attainment to perfection, nurturing the embryo of sagehood to maturity. Eventually, after a long time, one becomes a sage; therefore it is called gradual practice. It is like an infant, which has all the normal faculties at birth, but as yet undeveloped; only with the passage of years does it become an adult."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Karma's "place" of effect
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Have a look at that source I cited, which says that 'karma doesn't explain everything'.

Astus wrote:
That sutta talks about considering only past actions is wrong. That's because one should take into account the present mindset as a factor.

Wayfarer said:
That seems rather at odds with 'karmic determinism', don't you think?

Astus wrote:
It is because of wholesome karma that one attains human birth. Similarly, it is because of the bodhisattva path that one attains buddhahood. This is not a matter of chance.

"For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases	but stress."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html )

"There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

And so, while kamma and result
Thus causally maintain their round,
As seed and tree succeed in turn,
No first beginning can be shown.

Nor in the future round of births
Can they be shown not to occur:
Sectarians, not knowing this,
Have failed to gain self-mastery."
(Visuddhimagga XIX.20)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 4:53 PM
Title: Re: Karma's "place" of effect
Content:
Astus wrote:
Karma is how one sees everything. Karma is one's habitual inclinations and ideas. It could be said that karma is one's personality. Whatever one encounters, whatever happens, it's always perceived through one's concepts and feelings about oneself and the world. That way karma is also the driving force for one's decisions and actions. At the same time, that is why one can become free from karma by discovering the insubstantiality of the self and all experiences.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Title: Hong Kong nun accused
Content:
Astus wrote:
Hong Kong nun accused of embezzlement and sham marriages

Hong Kong officials have arrested four people from the scandal-hit Ting Wai Monastery, whose abbess has been accused of extravagant spending, mishandling donations and engaging in fake marriages.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-34525474


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I think you could say that is true, IF that is how you are defining "mindfulness" to begin with AKA "actively focus on the moment". However, if you don't define mindfulness like that, then perhaps that's not the case because the difference is entirely dependent on how you are defining it to begin with. John Kabat-Zinn doesn't really have a monopoly over the definition of mindfulness IMO

Astus wrote:
That definition seems to me like the general idea of what mindfulness is understood to be. Other definitions are possible and welcome.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Nothing can be separated or even established ultimately, but it can be useful to speak of such things.

Astus wrote:
I didn't mean 'ultimately'. It is more a matter of how those words are defined. On the one hand, there is the path of sila-samadhi-prajna. On the other hand, there is the unity of samadhi-prajna in the Platform Sutra, or http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/zzyk.shtml 's statement "Zazen is also not based upon discipline, practice, or wisdom. These three are all contained within it." And even the PP8000 (3.4) says, "The five perfections are in this manner contained in the perfection of wisdom, and the term ‘perfection of wisdom’ is just a synonym for the fulfillment of the six perfections. In consequence, when the perfection of wisdom is proclaimed, all the six perfections are proclaimed." At the same time, http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment writes, "People who are confused or deluded do not understand that the other five paramitas all evolve from the dana-paramita. Therefore, in practicing the dana-paramita, one also fulfills the practice of the other five paramitas." How does all this work? Nagarjuna explained it in the http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-15.pdf (p 41-45) that one can cultivate any one of the six that includes all the others, or can focus on one or two paramitas and thus cultivate the rest, or it is also possible to cultivate none and thus realise all.

In the case of the immediate enlightenment of Zen, there are no stages or levels, everything is included in the single realisation of no-mind. Talking of the general teachings for bodhisattvas is another matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wisdom and samadhi cannot be separated, just as wisdom and compassion cannot be separated. The wisdom that is without samadhi and/or compassion is not the wisdom of the buddhas, but rather some ideology, emptiness grasped incorrectly.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Scientific, Non-Mystical Buddhism
Content:
PorkChop said:
Your meteorite falls under the first, which is mechanistic and falls under physical laws.

Astus wrote:
The meteorite's path falls under a natural process. The meteorite crushing a being or a being's possessions is the third one. At the same time, the realms are created by the beings' karma, so it's hard to say that there are non-karmic forces. Also, consider the Yogacara description of how appearances emerge from karmic seeds stored in one's consciousness.

Here's this from Bodhidharma:

"What is the practice of accepting adversity? When suffering, a practitioner of the Way should reflect: “For innumerable kalpas, I have pursued the trivial instead of the essential, drifted through all spheres of existence, created much animosity and hatred, maligned and harmed others endlessly. Even though now I have done no wrong, I am reaping the karmic consequences of past transgressions. It is something that neither the heavens nor other people can impose upon me. Therefore I should accept it willingly, without any resentment or objection.” The sutra says, “Face hardships without distress.” How? With thorough insight. With this understanding in mind, you are in accord with the Principle, advancing on the Way through the experience of adversity. This is called the practice of accepting adversity."
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=57 )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 12th, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Scientific, Non-Mystical Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
What may seem mystical and supernatural in Buddhism are generally about the inner world. Just consider how the various heavens are connected to different levels of absorption (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html ). The various visions of the world can be summed up in what is called the http://www.sutrasmantras.info/glossary.html#eye, where the first one is our ordinary eye, and the second one is where all the supernatural things can be seen, while the other three are actually different levels of wisdom. Karma also is something that operates within one's inner world, defining one's perception of things and what could be called one's personality.

With a materialist ideology the entire inner world of one's mind is disregarded as if it had never existed. But we all experience thoughts, emotions, dreams, visions and various mental states. In fact, the concepts of materialism are also mental creations. Every experience one can have is within the mind, otherwise there is no consciousness of the experience and as such it cannot be called an experience. Since suffering/dissatisfaction exist within experience, it is within the realm of experience where one needs to look for solutions. Similarly, dreams and visions are also experiences, no different from ordinary events, like drinking a cup of tea. The difference is that while common people rarely encounter anything beyond the everyday worldly experiences, those who engage in spiritual cultivation - like meditation - can and often do have so called other-worldly experiences. Those other-worldly events are then reflected in the teachings and numerous stories that modern people easily and unthinkingly disregard as myths.

It is actually not particularly difficult to get in touch with the mystical side of our world. What it takes is to move our attention from the outside world of ordinary experiences to the inner realm. Normally the path to do that in Buddhism is to gain a firm foothold within the basic levels of absorption, that is, to be capable of maintaining a stable, calm and attentive mind at your will. There are other ways as well, generally not used by Buddhists, because those are not really conducive to liberation. Once one has a fairly good command of one's mind, it is then a matter of directing one's attention toward a particular topic or area of investigation. It can be used for the cultivation of the six supernormal powers (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html ), while in Mahayana it is applied to so called visualisation practices, where one can visit buddhas and buddha-lands (e.g. http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra22.html ). Used properly, one can gain the benefits of both concentration and insight.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
conebeckham said:
Isn't it obvious that words are always approximations?  Two people can read the same passage and gain different conceptual understandings.  This should be obvious--I mean, right here in this thread, there are examples of various interpretations of the very same source text!

Astus wrote:
It's not just texts people can have problem with.

"Three hundred years ago in Korea, there was a monk named Sok Du, which means ‘Rock Head.’ He was a very stupid man. The sutras were much too difficult for him, so he decided to study Zen. But sitting Zen was also too difficult. So he only did working Zen, in the kitchen and in the monastery fields. Twice a month the Zen Master would give a Dharma Speech, which would always fill Sok Du with confusion. One day, after the Dharma Speech, he went to the Zen Master and said, ‘Master, I'm tired of being so stupid. Isn't there some way I can understand?’
 	The Master said, ‘You must ask me a good question.’
 	Sok Du scratched his head and thought for a few minutes. Then he said, ‘Okay. You are always talking about Buddha. What is Buddha?’
 	The Master answered, ‘Juk shim shi bul,’ which means ‘Buddha is mind.’ But Sok Du misunderstood, and thought that the Master had said, ‘Jip shin shi bul,’ which means ‘Buddha is grass shoes.’
 	‘What a difficult kong-an!’ Sok Du thought, as he bowed to the Master and left. ‘How can Buddha be grass shoes? How will I ever understand?’
	For the next three years, Sok Du puzzled over this great question as he did his working Zen. He never asked the Master to explain; he just kept the question in his mind at all times. Finally, one day three years later, he was carrying a large load of firewood down the hill to the monastery. His foot hit a rock, he lost his balance, the wood fell, and his grass shoes went flying into the air. When they landed on the ground, they were broken, and he had attained enlightenment."
(from Seung Sahn: Dropping Ashes on the Buddha)

conebeckham said:
Dharma is a living tradition,no book has ever been enlightened.  Anyone who has met a genuine master and made connection understands the benefit of doing so, and the dimensions of Dharma that cannot be obtained through reading or study.

Astus wrote:
If it were so simple that genuine masters produced genuine masters, there would never have been any disagreement within Buddhism. On the contrary, the disciples of the same teacher establish different schools and have different ideas. And when one group starts to debate another group, all they can do is to pick up the written records of the teachings of the original teacher as a reference.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is absolutely no precedence in the sūtras for the idea that you can learn Buddhadharma by reading books.

Astus wrote:
Several Mahayana sutras contain their own "advertisement", saying things like knowing just a single stanza gives immeasurable merit and bring about enlightenment.

This matches well with my previous quote about how the Lotus Sutra itself is the Buddha:

"The Lord: If, Kausika, on the one hand you were given this Jambudvipa filled up to the top with relics of the Tathagatas; and if, on the other hand, you could share in a written copy of this perfection of wisdom; and if now you had to choose between the two, which one would you take?
Sakra: Just this perfection of wisdom. Because of my esteem for the Guide of the Tathagatas. Because in a true sense this is the body of the Tathagatas. As the Lord has said: “The Dharma-bodies are the Buddhas, the Lords. But, monks, you should not think that this individual body is my body. Monks, you should see Me from the accomplishment of the Dharma-body.”"
(PP8000, 4.1, tr Conze)

And others:

"If all bhiksus, bhiksunis, upasakas, upasikas, and even tirthikas hold this sutra, read, grasp and expound it to other persons, or copy or have others copy it, all such actions will become the cause of Enlightenment."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 16, tr Yamamoto)

"If beings are dying for wealth, I shall give it to them, and later recommend this Nirvana Sutra and have them read it. With the nobility, I shall use loving words, follow them and later, by degrees, recommend this Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra to them and get them to read it. With the dull, I shall force them to read it"
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 20, tr Yamamoto)

"You should accept, uphold, and read and recite this sūtra. Kauśika, suppose that a good man or woman trains to attain bodhi and practices the six pāramitās for kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Then suppose that a good man or woman hears, accepts, reads and recites, and upholds this sūtra. The merit acquired by the latter surpasses that of the former, not to mention that the latter widely expounds it to others. Therefore, Kauśika, you should read and recite this sūtra, and widely expound it to gods in your Thirty-three Heavens."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra51.html )

"there are three kinds of sentient beings that will be reborn there ... Second, those who read and recite Mahāyāna vaipulya sūtras. ... Those who wish to achieve a middling rebirth in the high rank need not read or recite vaipulya sūtras. However, they should have a good understanding of their tenets, and their minds should not be upset by the highest truth."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra24.html )

"If they have heard this Dharma Door, whether they copy this sūtra, read and recite it, or explain it, whether they persuade others to copy it, read and recite it, or explain it, I can see that these individuals will not go down the evil life-paths. Their three kinds of hindrances—afflictions, karmas, and requitals—will all be annihilated.  In a future life they will acquire the five eyes. They will have nectar sprinkled on their heads by all Buddhas."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra05.html )

"To remain untainted by worldly dharmas,
To acquire the affliction-free wisdom,
To take every action to benefit sentient beings,
And to be reborn in a pure Buddha Land,
One should hear, copy, and uphold
This wondrous sūtra treasure.
One should read, recite, ponder, and propagate it,
In order to understand the Buddha Ground."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra48b.html )

Malcolm said:
I generally translate my citations myself directly out of the canon. As far as I know, there is no other translation of this passage. But the Tibetan of this one is extremely simple and straight forward.

Astus wrote:
I was simply curious, because a search on the title does not give any results.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 5:50 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Tibetan text is extremely clear on this point. I don't much care what the Chinese translations or Suzuki's incredibly inaccurate paraphrase state.

Astus wrote:
The discourses in the sutra are supposedly spoken explanations. Since Mahamati and the Buddha are talking to each other, it is out of place to say that "apart from spoken explanations". Making an exception of verbal communication is problematic whether the sutra is meant as a spoken discourse or as a written text. If it is a spoken discourse, the whole sutra is an exception, like any other sutra. If it is a written text, it negates everything found there, including the stated exception. So, unlike other versions of the Lankavatara, the Tibetan seems to be in error.

Malcolm said:
Then of course there many, many statements like the following from the Ārya-niṣṭhāgantabhagavajjñānavaipūlya-sūtraratnānanta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra: Maudgalyayāna, the awakening of a bodhisattva is connected with the virtuous mentor

Astus wrote:
There are several statements on the importance of good friends already in the early discourses (e.g. "the whole of the holy life" in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html ). However, it does not address the difference between written and oral communication. That sutta itself explains that the importance of a good friend is visible in the fact that the Buddha himself taught the noble eightfold path, based on which beings can attain liberation. In another discourse ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.than.html ) the Buddha teaches that lay people should learn virtue, generosity and discernment by associating with good lay friends. But that doesn't mean they could not learn the same qualities by listening to the Buddha and his monastic disciples, since there are quite a few cases where people gain faith and insight from a single teaching. Good friends are also said ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.001.than.html ) to be a prerequisite for developing the wings to self-awakening, because through them one learns the Dharma. The reason for it being a prerequisite is because one has to learn of the teachings. It does not say that the source is limited to face to face communication using voice.

By the way, what is that sutra you quote from? Any English translation? Any other title (Sanskrit/English/Chinese)?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm said:
What I am claiming is that oral communication and teaching is different than reading. For example, our conversation here is dry and logical [at least my side of the conversation is]. If we were talking, or I was listening to you teach Dharma, there is a qualitatively different sort of communication happening.

Astus wrote:
That is meta-communication, all those other things that go on during a face-to-face conversation. It is not a matter of words being pronounced or written. Then there are two options to maintain that orality is the only way of communicating the Dharma: either that words combined with other signifiers/expressions transmit the whole, or that words are irrelevant and only the other expressions convey the meaning. It also raises the question if anything can be communicated at all through the written form.

One of the advantages of texts is exactly their "dry and logical" nature (although I wouldn't dismiss the literary arts as capable of more than that). Unlike spontaneous verbal communication, writing generally requires some focus and organising of thoughts, except perhaps instant messaging.

Malcolm said:
The Buddha also addresses this issue later on in the text, beginning on folio 212/a of the Lhasa edition:
That being the case, therefore Mahāmati, apart from spoken explanations, the Buddha and the other bodhisattvas have taught "The Tathāgatas have never explained and will never explain even a single letter." Why? For this reason, because in all Dharmas there are no letters, in absence of the meaning [the Dharma] cannot be explained. There is an explanation through taking hold of concepts. Mahāmati, if Dharma is not explained, the doctrine will perish. If the doctrine perishes, there will be no buddhas, pratyekabuddhas and śravakas.

Astus wrote:
"For this reason, Mahamati, it is declared in the canonical text by myself and other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that not a letter is uttered or answered by the Tathagatas. For what reason? Because truths are not dependent on letters. It is not that they never declare what is in conformity with meaning; when they declare anything, it is according to the discrimination [of all beings]. If, Mahamati, the truth is not declared1 [in words] the scriptures containing all truths will disappear, and when the scriptures disappear there will be no Buddhas, Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas; and when there is no one [to teach], what is to be taught and to whom?"
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.76)

There is no mention of an exception for "spoken explanations" in Suzuki's translation. In T670 it says "我等諸佛及諸菩薩，不說一字、不答一字。" (We, all buddhas, and all bodhisattvas, don't say a word, don't respond a word.), in T671 it says "是故我經中說，諸佛如來乃至不說一字不示一名" (It is because I say in the scriptures, all buddha-tathagatas don't go as far as saying a single word or giving a single name.), , and in T672 it says "我經中說，我與諸佛及諸菩薩，不說一字不答一字。" (I say in the scriptures, I, and all buddhas, and all bodhisattvas, don't say a word, don't respond a word). So, neither of the three Chinese Lankavatara translations speak of such an exception.

As for the rest of the quote and its general meaning, it simply warns about attaching to words, just as the sutra does at other places as well. Also, it clearly says that the teachings are necessary, because without them there is no realisation of any kind. So, while not a word's spoken, the teaching must be said anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
DGA said:
One of our limitations is that a connection to an authentic source of Dharma is indispensable to our awakening.  And that takes the form of an oral tradition.  I'm not discounting the value of books here; I value study as much as anyone does, even if I'm not very good at it.  My point is merely that pratyekabuddhas are extraordinarily rare, and for the overwhelming majority of us, working in a tradition is the only viable way up the mountain.

Astus wrote:
Reading the sutras and treatises is part of connecting with the authentic tradition. Pratyekabuddhas don't have access to any of that kind. On the other hand, dissemination of texts is an important way of spreading the Dharma (e.g. http://www.buddhiststudies.net/print_culture_dissertation.html - academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:161474/CONTENT/Scott_columbia_0054D_11367.pdf ). Also, consider the impact of Kumarajiva in Chinese Buddhism.

Hongren wrote: "whosoever practices in harmony with the text will be the first to attain Buddhahood". That's one of the closing sentences of his only known work, the https://sites.google.com/site/blinddharmainsamsara/home/useful-and-important-english-teachings/the-secret-heart-of-the-chan-forest/losseis-maestros-del-lanka-tradicion/5-ho/treatise-on-the-supreme-vehicle.

Here's an illustration of how it is neither an oral nor a scriptural matter (sidenote: koans are literary works):

One day, Guishan said to Xiangyan, “I’m not asking you about what’s recorded in or what can be learned from the scriptures! You must say something from the time before you were born and before you could distinguish objects. I want to record what you say.”
Xiangyan was confused and unable to answer. He sat in deep thought for a some time and then mumbled a few words to explain his understanding. But Guishan wouldn’t accept this.
Xiangyan said, “Then would the master please explain it?”
Guishan said, “What I might say would merely be my own understanding. How could it benefit your own view?”
Xiangyan returned to the monks’ hall and searched through the books he had collected, but he couldn’t find a single phrase that could be used to answer Guishan’s question.
Xiangyan then sighed and said, “A picture of a cake can’t satisfy hunger.”
He then burned all his books and said, “During this lifetime I won’t study the essential doctrine. I’ll just become a common mendicant monk, and I won’t apply my mind to this any more.”
Xiangyan tearfully left Guishan. He then went traveling and eventually resided at Nanyang, the site of the grave of National Teacher Nanyang Huizhong.
One day as Xiangyan was scything grass, a small piece of tile was knocked through the air and struck a stalk of bamboo. Upon hearing the sound of the tile hitting the bamboo, Xiangyan instantly experienced vast enlightenment.
Xiangyan then bathed and lit incense. Bowing in the direction of Guishan, he said, “The master’s great compassion exceeds that of one’s parents! Back then if you had explained it, then how could this have come to pass?”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 191-192)

What do Zen students do then? Here's the answer (sidenote: https://books.google.com/books?id=JkGTSWEUCeUC ):

One day the Councilor Wang visited the master. When he met the master in front of the Monks’ Hall, he asked, “Do the monks of this monastery read the sutras?”
“No, they don’t read sutras,” said the master.
“Then do they learn meditation?” asked the councilor.
“No, they don’t learn meditation,” answered the master.
“If they neither read sutras nor learn meditation, what in the world are they doing?” asked the councilor.
“All I do is make them become buddhas and patriarchs,” said the master.
The councilor said, “‘Though gold dust is valuable, in the eyes it causes cataracts.’”
“I always used to think you were just a common fellow,” said the master.
(Record of Linji, p 38, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
DGA said:
he was part of a living culture of Dharma.  Peter Hershock, a contemporary Ch'an master and scholar, makes the point that awakening in East Asian Buddhism is fundamentally social in nature.  It's collaborative.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism is a religion, and religion means communal faith and practice. In other words, pratyekabuddhas exist only when there is no Dharma in the world. Also, Buddhism is mostly focused on ordained monastics, thus one of the meanings of sangha stands only for monks and nuns. Even lay communal activities are centred around monasteries most of the times. So it could be argued that without monasteries there is no Buddhist practice.

DGA said:
transmission outside the scriptures (and hence available only from a relationship with a teacher).

Astus wrote:
Zen is neither a scriptural nor an oral lineage. Enlightenment is not bound to texts or people, while both can function as catalysts. At the same time, all other schools besides Zen are called Teaching Schools (教宗), as they are based upon specific scriptures or treatises, not some sort of oral transmission. Still, see what Yongming has to say about sutras and enlightenment:

"All [the patriarchs] are descendants of the Buddha. I now cite the words of the original teacher [ Śakyamuni] to train and instruct disciples, encouraging their practice by having them follow his statements; to know the implicit truth [ zong ] through reading the Dharma, and not rush around searching for it elsewhere; to personally realize the Buddha’s intention. After they understand the message, they at once enter the ranks of the patriarchs; none of them argues over sudden and gradual methods. When they see their nature, they exhibit evidence of their perfect comprehension; how can they advocate ranking one patriarch over another? If this is the case, what contradiction is there between the scriptural teachings and the message of Chan patriarchs? In the case of the twenty-eight patriarchs of former ages in India, the six patriarchs in this land, as well as Great Master Mazu of Hongzhou, and National Preceptor [Hui]zhong of Nanyang, Chan master Dayi of Ehu, Chan master Benjing of Mount Sikong, and so on, all of them perfectly awakened to their own minds through thorough knowledge of the scriptures and treatises. Whenever they preached to their followers, they always referred to real documented evidence. They never speculated beyond what was in their own hearts, or expounded on the basis of false presuppositions. Consequently, even as the years pass uninterrupted, the winds of truth do not abate. By regarding the words of the sage [the Buddha] as the true measure, you will not be deceived by perverse and false claims. By using the teaching as your guide, you will have something to rely on."
(Yongming Yanshou: Zongjinglu, in Conception of Chan, p 249)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sūtras and tantras are not written documents. The written documents that record them are merely a shadow of verbal discourse that took place at some time. The meaning of those documents is not contained within the documents.

Astus wrote:
Either you say that the texts are incomplete - in which case you'd need to be in possession of some original audio record - or you claim that words as voice are significantly different from words as letters - in which case you either imply meta-communication or something else that I hope you can demonstrate. If meaning exists outside of the means of communication, it cannot be communicated, so even a living teacher is of no use. Finally, if meaning cannot be derived from scriptures, the whole literary corpus of mankind is literally meaningless, so it is truly a miracle that such a pointless method has been in use for such a long time.

"If, Mahamati, meaning is different from words, it will not be made manifest by means of words; but meaning is entered into by words as things [are revealed] by a lamp. It is, Mahamati, like a man carrying a lamp to look after his property. [By means of this light] he can say: This is my property and so is kept in this place. Just so, Mahamati, by means of the lamp of words and speech originating from discrimination, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas can enter into the exalted state of self-realisation which is free from speech-discrimination."
( http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm, 3.65)

Malcolm said:
We can certainly come to understand the meaning of the Dharma by studying with a teacher. We can never come to understand the meaning of the Dharma merely by reading books.

Astus wrote:
Does a teacher gives any Dharma not contained in the sutras? If yes, then his teaching fails to follow the Dharma of the buddhas. If no, then sutras are both valid and beneficial sources of the Dharma.

"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)

Malcolm said:
For example, the name of a teaching like Kalacakra, does not mean that the real Kalacakra can be found in the book called Kalacakra. Just as the real Prajñāpāramitā cannot be found in all the books that bear that name. The meaning of Kalackara and Prajñāpāramitā can only be learned from a teacher, never from the books themselves.

Astus wrote:
Prajnaparamita is not obtained from anyone or anything. How could a person today instruct in that better than the Buddha?

"Wherever this sutra is taught, read, recited, copied, or wherever it is to be found, one should build a seven-jeweled stupa of great height and width and richly ornamented. There is no need to put a relic inside. Why is this? Because the Tathāgata is already in it. ... the highest, complete enlightenment of all the bodhisattvas is within this sutra. This sutra opens the gate of skillful means and reveals the marks of the truth."
(Lotus Sutra, ch 10, p 161, 162, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
Words do not communicate, people communicate. ... The transmission of the Dharma does not lie in words themselves, it lies in the interaction between two people.

Astus wrote:
And what is the means of interaction between two people? Words.

Malcolm said:
Words cannot adapt with circumstances.

Astus wrote:
That's a matter of hermeneutics.

Malcolm said:
Words cannot estimate your level of understanding.

Astus wrote:
If there are levels of understanding - as defined in scriptures - then even teachers can only use that for reference. If there are no clear definitions, then it is arbitrary and unreliable.

Malcolm said:
Words cannot answer your questions.

Astus wrote:
How does a non-verbal question look like


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm said:
Jonghwi was also a Seon master.

Astus wrote:
Apparently Jinul was not satisfied with the teachings provided by him or others, so he did not continue their tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, Chinul had a Seon master, Jonghwi of Sagulsan.

Astus wrote:
Jonghwi was his ordination master. Jinul gained realisation and developed his teachings on his own, particularly he introduced the huatou/hwadu method - propagated by Dahui Zonggao - to Korea without ever having visited China.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Of course Chinul was a great scholar, thinker, and monk (not the reader of Internet forums like us). The point is that literally hearing the words was not neccessary in his case.  The other activities (years of meditation, study, etc.) were what helped prepare him.

Astus wrote:
You could add Wonhyo, Chengguan, Dushun, Jizang, Huisi and probably every Buddhist teacher who did not belong to a specific lineage, but rather studied the Dharma, listened to various people, contemplated the teachings, came to a realisation, then started to teach publicly and write some treatises.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
DGA said:
He was part of a living culture.  He was not a consumer.

Astus wrote:
Very true. It might as well be emphasised that he was a fully ordained monk. Plus he could read literary Chinese. And he was male. Those are all qualities that is true for almost every recognised teacher within East Asian Buddhism in the last 2000 years. But - understandably - the common requisites of leaving home and being male are not often brought up on the forum.

Since it's not been debated that whatever words that can be pronounced through the mouth can also be written down, there can be no difference made between the actual communication of the teachings through the two media. What may count are other factors that have not been mentioned. For instance, the teacher's ability to quickly adapt to the disciple's needs, respond to questions, explain difficult points in a way that is easily comprehensible, and other similar elements that make a living teacher beneficial in all sorts of studies.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism as type of agnosticism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But I think it only applies to a minority.

Astus wrote:
I think it's the opposite. It's just that they don't show up on weekly pujas except when there is a rather famous teacher handing out Dharma-bites. It's similar to how most Christians don't regularly attend services, but if the Pope comes thousands show up, although probably many know very little of the doctrines of the church (not to mention following the commandments), and likely some are not even Catholics.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 3:51 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra (Split)
Content:
PorkChop said:
It's not the same thing as just having 'heard people reciting the nenbutsu' whatsoever.

Astus wrote:
Then what is it? Honen had his own unique interpretation of the Pure Land teachings and did not rely on Tendai doctrines for that, otherwise he would have remained a Tendai priest. He himself set up the differences between various interpretations of nenbutsu, and he did not establish a continuity with Tendai. What was then transmitted?

PorkChop said:
the Nembutsu is transmitted orally from teacher to student

Astus wrote:
How does that define the efficiency of the practice of nenbutsu? Are people who have no contact with Jodoshu priests excluded from following Honen? And I'm not asking if they can be considered members of the church, that's a different matter. If those with no connection to a recognised Jodoshu teacher can still attain birth according to the Jodoshu doctrine, what is the role of oral transmission besides maintaining a community?

Your quote from https://bffct.org/bff/what-is-shin-buddhism/: "Such an encounter can come through direct listening to that teacher, or through “listening” by hearing or reading the teacher’s written words"
And from http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/OFUMI.html: "it is evident [in the received texts]"

That is, listening can happen through spoken as well as written words, and Rennyo bases his statement on texts in a text.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
What I mean exactly is that meaning of the Dharma is always learned from a teacher, not a text. A text cannot convey even its own meaning. In order to learn the meaning of a text, one must have a teacher. And also the Dharma does not depend on texts. One does not need books and texts to communicate its essentials.

Books do not communicate, only people do. Books may support that communication, but they are entirely incapable of replacing human transmission of the Dharma from mouth to ear.

Astus wrote:
Words can be communicated both through voice and letters. What is the difference between you telling me the above words over the phone or over this board? The meaning is something I have to derive from the words in both cases, so it is not communicated in either way.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra (Split)
Content:
PorkChop said:
Actually no. Honen's monk name on Hiei was "Genku". He was in the lineage of Genshin. The Nembutsu had already been transmitted via Tendai. Yes, Honen modified his understanding of the Nembutsu from the writings of ShanTai and from personal experience. This is also the reason for such a big deal made about the dream encounter Honen had with ShanTao.

Astus wrote:
If by that transmission you mean Honen must have heard people reciting the nenbutsu, then probably most East Asian Buddhists (and even non-Buddhists) are members of that lineage of buddha-remembrance. But it seems to me that Honen did not consider oral transmission reliable, since already in his life many misinterpreted his teachings, so he composed his http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/WRITINGS/ichimai.html. His http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/WRITINGS/senchakushu.html consists mostly of quotes from scriptures, similarly to the http://shinranworks.com/the-major-expositions/. I would be surprised if there were even one reference to some oral teaching he had personally received.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
But the Dharma has always been communicated through the medium of the voice, not the medium of the page, and even Huineng's awakening story bears this out.

Astus wrote:
Not sure what exactly you mean here. People have been studying the Dharma through texts for ages. Also, teachers have been teaching from texts for ages. Many have composed treatises and other written materials in order to preserve what they want to communicate. Textual communication has also been used for a long time now to disseminate the teachings, communicate it to those one has never met. And the process of translation has not even been addressed.

Malcolm said:
The oral transmission for all the Sūtras in the Tibetan Canon still exists and is given at regular intervals.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean the practice that someone reads out loud what is written? It's not exactly like when one person knows a teaching by heart and transmits it in a way that the other memorises it from hearing. But then perhaps the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBDtAhLxpLQ of the Great Prajnaparamita Sutra (大般若経転読) could be called oral transmission as well, even if they only shout the title and volume number of 600 fascicles of text.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
PorkChop said:
Since you bring up Pure Land, the Nembutsu has always been an oral tradition. It's always been passed on by a teacher.

Astus wrote:
Didn't Honen base his teachings on Shandao and other texts, without anyone transmitting anything orally?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: If 5 skandha are empty, why would you need to save being
Content:
Astus wrote:
As long as there is this idea that there is someone to save someone else, it is paramount to do all the saving activities. Once it's clear that the aggregates are empty, there is nobody to save anyone.

Here the Bodhisattva, the great being, thinks thus: ‘countless beings should I lead to Nirvana and yet there are none who lead to Nirvana, or who should be led to it.’ However many beings he may lead to Nirvana, yet there is not any being that has been led to Nirvana, nor that had led others to it. For such is the true nature of dharmas, seeing that their nature is illusory. Just as if, Subhuti, a clever magician, or magician’s apprentice, were to conjure up at the crossroads a great crowd of people, and then make them vanish again.
(PP8000, 1.4, tr Conze)

Gods: Beings that are like a magical illusion, are they not just an illusion?
Subhuti: Like a magical illusion are those beings, like a dream. For not two different things are magical illusion and beings, are dreams and beings. All objective facts also are like a magical illusion, like a dream. The various classes of saints, from Streamwinner to Buddhahood, also are like a magical illusion, like a dream.
Gods: A fully enlightened Buddha also, you say, is like a magical illusions, is like a dream? Buddhahood also, you say, is like a magical illusion, is like a dream?
Subhuti: Even Nirvana, I say, is like a magical illusion, is like a dream. How much more so anything else!
Gods: Even Nirvana, Holy Subhuti, you say, is like an illusion, is like a dream?
Subhuti: Even if perchance there could be anything more distinguished, of that too I would say that is like an illusion, like a dream. For not two different things are illusion and Nirvana, are dreams and Nirvana.
(PP8000, 2.3, tr Conze)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
PorkChop said:
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but this seems like a fairly bold statement that's almost certainly false.

Astus wrote:
Yes, there are smaller sutras and excerpts that are used for daily recitation. There are also some who focus on a single text (Lotus Sutra, Diamond Sutra) or a group of texts (the three Pure Land sutras). What is missing is the oral transmission of those sutras, not to mention the rest of the canon. On the other hand, the practice of copying texts is still preserved (e.g. http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/sutra/shakyo.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
DGA said:
He didn't advocate for everyone to just read Dogen and avoid hearing the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
Neither did Dogen, nor do I. What I object against is the primacy of oral transmission, when the teachings are actually preserved in written form. Like for instance the teachings of Dogen that were generally forgotten but they have returned to the mainstream in their textual form.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
Hearing, Astus, not reading...

Astus wrote:
Where is the difference?

"Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, ‘not established’ are themselves written." ( http://www.cttbusa.org/6patriarch/6patriarch20.asp, ch 10, tr BTTS)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
You are like a person who mistakes the leaves for the trunk, in this respect. Buddhadharma has always been, and will always be, a tradition in which the meaning of the Dharma is communicated orally.

Astus wrote:
There are several cases where a tradition was revived/reformed/established based on scriptural materials. Recent cases include most of modern Theravada, the Soto Zen reform of Menzan Zuiho in Japan and the reforms of Taixu, Yinshun and others in China/Taiwan.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra (Split)
Content:
DGA said:
importance of learning the Dharma from a capable teacher.

Astus wrote:
Who counts as a capable teacher depends on whom one likes. Thus both the best and the worst can gather a large community where both call the other incompetent. How to tell which one is correct? That's when one has to start learning from the Buddha himself by reading his words. And if that's not enough, there are numerous traditionally approved masters, like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga and Vasubandhu to consult with. And if even that's not enough, there are quite a few generally reliable works by modern teachers, like the Dalai Lama, Thrangu Rinpoche, Thich Nhat Hanh, Hsing Yun, Sheng Yen, etc.

DGA said:
Buddha Dharma is described as an oral tradition to the present, even with all these texts available.

Astus wrote:
By whom? There are teachers, true. But hardly any of them could recite even just a few major Mahayana sutras, not to mention the whole canon of the Buddha's words. Buddhism has been a scriptural tradition for over two millennia. It doesn't mean there are no explanations give orally, on the spot. But even the most important commentaries are textual.

DGA said:
What little understanding I have comes primarily from listening to teachers teach, and watching their example.

Astus wrote:
That can show how worthy teachers are important and beneficial. Or that you prefer to listen to people instead of reading. Or both. Or maybe neither.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Serenity509 said:
Since there are so many different sutras that appear to contradict each other on so many things, what should we do when the literal meaning of one sutra contradicts the literal meaning of another? One possibility is to compare and contrast divergent sutras, and then hopefully come to a middle ground between them.

Astus wrote:
The common rule: differentiate between figurative (neyartha) and literal (nitartha) statements.

"To know the categories of the scriptures,
Understand that sutras explaining other than the meaning of suchness,
Teach expedient truth, – these are to be interpreted,
While those explaining emptiness teach certain truth."
(Madhyamakavatara, 6.97)

There are also the so called https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=22185#p22185.

http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/321/vbs321p024.htm:

If one accepts [only] one's own dharmas, honors [only] one's own dharma, and cultivates [only] one's own dharma, while refusing to accept or honor another's dharma, and while maintaining that [other's dharmas] are faulty, if one maintains that this is pure and has attained the benefit of the supreme meaning, then among all of them, there are none which are impure. How is this so? Because they all [exclusively] love their own dharma.
Question: If all views possess faults, then what is [the status] of the supreme-meaning siddhanta?
Reply: It goes beyond the path of all discourse. The locus of thought activity is extinct in it. Nowhere is there anything upon which it relies. It does not proclaim any dharma. The actual characteristic of all dharmas has no beginning, has no middle and has no end. It is inexhaustible and indestructible. This is what is meant by the “supreme-meaning siddhanta.”


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
It's all just a bunch of attachments to names and concepts...it is not very important.

Astus wrote:
What is?

Malcolm said:
The meaning.

Astus wrote:
And what meaning is that here?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
It's all just a bunch of attachments to names and concepts...it is not very important.

Astus wrote:
What is?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Lack of inherent non-existence
Content:
Brev said:
I seem to have misinterpreted Madhyamaka, thinking it implies universal conventional existence of sorts. Would it be more accurate to say that all dharmas are conceptual constructions but that any particular conceptual construction only exists if it has a basis of designation in experience?

Astus wrote:
Although some thinkers may involve himself in the areas of epistemology and some general analysis of conventional reality, Madhyamaka is primarily about relinquishing attachment to views and bringing about insight into emptiness. And that exists within the larger context of the bodhisattva path. At the same time, the path exists within the context of ordinary, conventional world.

As for the relationship between concepts and experience, actually neither of them are particularly reliable. Experiences in the six sensory areas are completely ungraspable, as they don't remain even for a moment. What we generally operate with are mental creations of stories of events, and so they are conceptual. Such conceptual constructs can include various values and judgements about what is true and what is false depending on various conditions. But debating those values does not generate liberation from attachment to concepts, thus not a topic for Madhyamaka analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Lack of inherent non-existence
Content:
Astus wrote:
When one thing cannot be established as real, many things cannot be established either, as many means several ones. Thus dependent origination is only a conventional expression, without existence or non-existence.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: How to eliminate self-cherishing?
Content:
Astus wrote:
One must see things as they are, dependently originated without a single essence. Agnosticism or verbal repetition of "there is no self" are useless.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Pyrokinesis, demonstration. Siddhi in Buddhism?
Content:
BrianG said:
Siddhis are well within the realm of what is natural, from the viewpoint of Buddhism.  From the point of view of Charvaka's like James Randi, the mind is "supernatural".

Astus wrote:
They are natural if that nature is within the realm of personal experience, i.e. subjective. From that comes that it does not appear as anything objective, thus not measurable through scientific methods. It also means that those who claim to be able to perform magical feats within the realm of what is commonly called the physical world are necessarily frauds.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Serenity509 said:
It's interesting to see that both Shinran and Nichiren, despite their differences, see Amida as the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra

Astus wrote:
In your quote: "they mistake the reflection of the moon on the water for the real moon shining in the sky" That is, for Nichiren Shakyamuni is the true buddha, others are reflections. While for Shinran it is Amida who's the true buddha and Shakyamuni is a manifestation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
When one practices Zen meditation in this way, when objects arise to the mind, what does it mean that they are left alone? In mindfulness practice, this would mean that the object is simply observed but not altered or pushed away or drawn in. It is passive in the sense that the meditator doesn't try to change or push away the object, but at the same time, one is actively watching and being aware of the object. Is this the same in Zen?

Astus wrote:
To leave things as they are means not meddling, not manipulating. You don't even observe things, as that would be an attempt to make something. So, for instance, when you sit at home, you hear people talking from outside. There is no need to actively turn to it, listen to it, as you already hear them. When you turn to it, that is already adding something, grasping at an object. While if you feel disturbed by the noises - the feeling itself coming from grasping the noise - and you try to shut them out, that is rejecting.

There is also a way to learn leaving things alone through using an object to hold on to, and that is usually the process of breathing. When you concentrate on your breathing, although you can still see, hear, feel and think, you don't do anything with them. Here it is possible to avoid manipulating because one's attention is fixed on an object. But that's only a temporary method with limited use. It should be understood that no matter what you do, no matter how much you struggle, experiences still just come and go, they are without anything to keep or improve. So, even leaving things as they are is not something that needs practising or holding on to, simply because things are already as they are.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 6:16 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Dropping the mind, as far as I can tell, is the recognition of emptiness of all phenomena, so we don't 'take them up' as real, as an 'object', with ourselves as 'the subject'. Recognising it all as empty, both subject and object dissolve and in practice this is no-thought, just responding to causes and conditions as they arise and not making anything.

Mindfulness, on the other hand, is cultivating attention to objects, external and internal and not necessarily seeing into their empty nature. Mindfulness doesn't imply insight and liberation, though of course it is very helpful, even necessary, for both.

Astus wrote:
So the difference is like this:

mindfulness: being aware of the present experiences without judging them - one has to actively focus on the moment, avoids falling into daydreaming about past and future
zazen: not holding on to whatever experience presents itself - there is nothing to do with anything, avoids creating streams of thoughts (thinking) or blocking thoughts (not thinking)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I guess Zen is a lot more like mind less ness than mind ful ness. Dropping the mind rather than filling it with non-existent objects.

Astus wrote:
Can you point out how that difference appears in practice?

"Even if it is understood that Zen practice is not physical or verbal, there still arises a question about the statement that Zen is not mental performance either."
and
"The various formal teachings and practices of Buddha are designed as expedients to guide people according to their individual needs and potentials. They are formulated to lead people into the realm of enlightenment and are applied to the state where unenlightenment and enlightenment have already been distinguished.
Zen, in contrast, aims for the fundamental state, which is prior to this distinction. Therefore it does not admit of practices based on an existing dualism but points directly to the primordial unity underlying fabricated dualities. As the third patriarch of Zen said, "It is a mistake to apply the mind to the mind." The abstruse teaching of Zen is to "neither strive nor neglect.""
(Muso Kokushi – Dream Conversations on Buddhism and Zen)

And there is this essay: http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf_Mindfulness%20and%20Mindlessness.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Pyrokinesis, demonstration. Siddhi in Buddhism?
Content:
Jesse said:
So, even under the assumption they exist, it'd be a bad idea to make it public.

Astus wrote:
As ClearblueSky said, the numerous stories that are supposed to show that magical powers are real talk about public performances, starting with the accounts of the Buddha's miracles. So, if anyone thinks s/he possesses superpowers, please step forward and show it. Otherwise it's better to keep that claim confined to D&D sessions.

Regarding government use of magical powers, I recommend this fine study: https://books.google.com/books?id=9MbONFbWlmYC, It contains accounts of Vajra-masters using mantras and deities in warfare.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
DGA said:
when does meditation start or stop?  Does Zazen begin or end?  Does mindfulness?  is meditation even comprehensible without considering the frame in which it is presented and practiced?

Astus wrote:
Meditation starts when one consciously beings to apply the given instructions, and stops when one stops applying them. Same goes for zazen, unless one is a buddha. Mindfulness as well has a beginning and end, since it is a method consciously used.

Meditation is comprehensible as a mental exercise. It is also an important element, since it is believed to bring about certain results, exactly because of what and how is done as a meditation. Cause and effect. It should not matter what we believe outside of the meditation practice, if it is only what is practised during meditation that should generate the desired achievements.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Could someone explain in plain English for me how these types of meditation are practiced?

Astus wrote:
"If the body is motionless, it won't create a heavy flow of physical sensations that stir up big waves. even though we may have some discomfort, or itches, or runny noses, it is worthwhile to relate openly to these in sitting, and not shift, or scratch, or sniffle as we otherwise might. To relate openly means to take each experience as just itself, neither clining to our opinions or feelings about it, nor trying to avoid it. ... in zazen we sit as still as we can, maintaining stillness even in the eyes, regardless of the sensation that arise. We are simply aware of and accepting of what comes up, just as it is - without running away from it or clining to it. This is what sitting is."
(Zen Meditation in Plain English, ebook p 65)

"Do not concentrate on any particular object or control your thought. When you maintain a proper posture and your breathing settles down, your mind will naturally become tranquil. When various thoughts arise in your mind, do not become caught up by them or struggle with them; neither pursue nor try to escape from them. Just leave thoughts alone, allowing them to come up and go away freely. The essential thing in doing zazen is to awaken (kakusoku) from distraction and dullness, and return to the right posture moment by moment."
( http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html )

"Noise, light and darkness, ache, pain, drowsiness, heat and cold, hunger, worry, past, future, fantasising and associating, leave them as they are."
( http://www.enryouji.net/zazen.html )

"Keep your lower abdomen relaxed. Do not think of “good” or “evil.” When a thought arises be aware of it; as soon as you are aware of it, it will disappear. If for long periods you forget all ties, you will naturally become One. These are the essential techniques of zazen."
( http://zen.rinnou.net/zazen/sitting.html )

"In zazen we simply allow any thought, feeling or emotion to come up and then we simply let them go away; we actually do nothing. In sitting, any thought or condition of mind is like a cloud in the sky. Somehow clouds appear in the sky, changing form as they stay for a while, and then they disappear. Similar to clouds in the sky, any thought that appears in zazen simply stays for a while and then disappears."
( http://antaiji.org/dharma/okumura-mind-and-zazen/?lang=en )

"The state in Zazen is without intention and is different from thinking. This statement sounds strange as we normally believe that we are always thinking. We avoid intentionally following a train of thought during Zazen by concentrating on maintaining the posture. Of course spontaneous thoughts and images arise in our consciousness during Zazen, but they are not important. When we notice that we are thinking about something, we should simply stop. If we correct our posture, the thought or perception will disappear and our consciousness will slowly become clear and we will feel peaceful. In this peaceful and balanced state, we are in the state that is “different from thinking.”"
(Introduction to Buddhism and the Practice of Zazen, http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/IBPZ/IBPZ-English.pdf )

Now compare those to the following instructions on mindfulness practice:

"The key is not to stop the thoughts, but to acknowledge them. They'll float away on their own. And then the many benefits of mindfulness practice — from reduced anxiety and heart rate to increased memory and awareness — can start to follow."
( http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-practice-mindfulness-meditation-2015-4 )

"Mindfulness is the energy of being aware and awake to the present moment. It is the continuous practice of touching life deeply in every moment of daily life. To be mindful is to be truly alive, present and at one with those around you and with what you are doing."
( http://plumvillage.org/mindfulness-practice/ )

"Mindfulness means maintaining a moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment.
Mindfulness also involves acceptance, meaning that we pay attention to our thoughts and feelings without judging them—without believing, for instance, that there’s a “right” or “wrong” way to think or feel in a given moment. When we practice mindfulness, our thoughts tune into what we’re sensing in the present moment rather than rehashing the past or imagining the future."
( http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/mindfulness/definition )

"So what is mindfulness, and how does it work? Unlike mantra meditation, which involves focusing concentration on a particular word or sound, mindfulness aims to achieve a relaxed, non-judgmental awareness of your thoughts, feelings and sensations ... direct knowing of what is going on inside and outside ourselves, moment by moment"
( https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2014/jan/07/mindfulness-beginners-guide-meditation-technique-treatment-depression )

"Start this activity with mindfulness of the breath. Allow yourself to notice any thoughts that come into your head as you are aware of your breathing. Notice, pay attention to and accept these thoughts, without judgment. Thoughts are not bad or good, positive or negative, they just are what they are – the thought that you happen to be having at this particular moment. You may become aware that you are having difficulty thinking about your thoughts – so think about that. You may be thinking: “I can’t do this very well.” Well, that’s a thought too. Allow yourself to think about that. Some people like the metaphor of allowing the thoughts to just float like leaves on a stream, or clouds in a sky, noticing each passing thought and then the one that comes after it, and then the one that comes after that. A Buddhist idea is to think of thoughts as pages written on water. You may notice that just at the moment you become aware of a thought, it passes and is replaced by another thought. That’s what happens – thoughts come, and they go. Finally, bring yourself back to awareness of the breath."
( http://www.livingwell.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/8-MindfulnessofThoughts.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
DGA said:
conflates Zen, a Mahayana Buddhist tradition, with Zazen, which is a meditation practice that is characteristic of Zen Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
In a sense, yes. Although, as you can see in my signature, I'm not really convinced by the popular view that meditation is a central thing, nevertheless, it is regarded as such, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else.

"In Zen, the emphasis is on zazen. Whether we are talking about Soto school or Rinzai school, whether we are dealing with koan introspection or silent illumination, the cornerstone of Zen is zazen." ( http://www.mro.org/mr/archive/18-4/articles/stillpt.htm )

And there is Dogen's view how Zen is really just zazen: "Nowadays, dropping the word “za,” they talk of just the Zen sect. This
interpretation is clear from records of the patriarchs." (Bendowa, SBGZ, v 1, p 11, BDK Edition)

DGA said:
Are those objectives the same or different?

Astus wrote:
Both mindfulness and zazen are described as practising without specific goals. Although the larger context can be different, here the topic is what happens during meditation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 5:52 PM
Title: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
Astus wrote:
"zazen is just to become present in the process of zazen itself ... Whatever happens, all we have to do is to be constantly present right in the middle of the process of zazen. This is the beginning and also the end. You can do it; it is open to all people, whoever they are. This is shikantaza." ( https://naturalmind.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/to-live-is-just-to-live/ )

"Mindfulness meditation is unique in that it is not directed toward getting us to be different from how we already are. Instead, it helps us become aware of what is already true moment by moment. We could say that it teaches us how to be unconditionally present; that is, it helps us be present with whatever is happening, no matter what it is." ( https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-courage-be-present/201001/how-practice-mindfulness-meditation )

"Mindfulness is meeting the moment as it is, moment after moment after moment, wordlessly attending to our experiencing as it actually is. It is opening to not just the fragments of our lives that we like or dislike or view as important, but the whole of our experiencing. ...  It is the active recognition that any perceptions you have of "you" are just details rising and falling within countless other details, shifting and changing moment after moment. Mindfulness means please, please, please shut up and pay attention to this life as it really is, opening attention again and again through remembrance to some aspect of present experience in order to open past that to the context in which experiences rise and fall as such." ( http://wwzc.org/dharma-text/meaning-mindfulness )

What difference is there between the ever more popular mindfulness practice and zazen? Or are they actually the same?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Care to critique this notion for me?
Content:
Brev said:
The mindstream is a useful concept, absolutely. Does that contradict it being illusory? We ordinary beings don't recognize it as an illusion, but it is, right?

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by illusion? If you mean that it's without a permanent substance, then yes, it is illusory.

Brev said:
And a single moment in the mindstream is the Dharmadhatu in the sense that each phenomenon reflects all others, but an individual recognizes in that moment phenomena in an obscured way and not the Dharmadhatu proper, right?

Astus wrote:
The dharmadhatu is the ultimate nature. That phenomena are empty, that is called the ultimate truth. There is no emptiness outside of phenomena. Phenomena themselves are empty. Whether one realises that or not is a different matter.

Brev said:
Doesn't one only recognize it upon enlightenment? Do you mean that the mindstream is the Dharmadhatu in that the true nature of experience is the emptiness of phenomena?

Astus wrote:
Yes, experience itself is empty. It cannot be anything else.

Brev said:
Or that one inevitably attains enlightenment, upon which omniscience is achieved and the Dharmadhatu is recognized and hence the mindstream itself really is at that point the Dharmadhatu proper?

Astus wrote:
Enlightenment is not inevitable unless one is already on the path.

In the Huayan school they talk of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharmadh%C4%81tu.

1. discrete objects (excluding emptiness - 'this is a vase')
2. emptiness (excluding objects - 'there is no vase')
3. mixing of objects and emptiness (but still thought of as two sides - 'conventionally vase, ultimately no vase')
4. non-obstruction of objects (single reality of suchness - 'a vase is just a vase')


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Care to critique this notion for me?
Content:
Brev said:
Would it be correct to say that the mindstream is an illusion, there being no arising, and each moment of experience is an expression of the Dharmadhatu?

Astus wrote:
Arising, duration and cessation are concepts. Even a mind-stream is just a concept. Nevertheless, it is a useful description. As for "expression of the Dharmadhatu", no. The mind-stream is the Dharmadhatu.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 5:42 PM
Title: Re: Anti-semitism at DW
Content:
Astus wrote:
Read through the thread. Still no sign or citation of anti-semitism present on DW.

As some may notice, I live in Budapest (one of its nicknames, coming from far-right people but embraced by some Jews: Judapest). I generally recognise anti-semitic statements and attitudes when I see them, although how it happens in other countries/cultures might be different. As why there are still those who have a general negative attitude towards Jews, it's a cultural heritage. It's now moved to the level of myth, at least in my region of the world where Jews are mostly invisible (no special robes, hats, etc., and even if one or two wears them, nobody recognises them to be Jews). At the same time, Muslims are fairly visible, especially women, so nationalist people do have a group of people to recognise as the enemy, they're easy targets.

Still, as mentioned before, presence of anti-semitism at DW has not yet been demonstrated.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Care to critique this notion for me?
Content:
Matt J said:
There's a thought experiment about a color theorist who lives in a (literally) black and white world. The walls are black, her clothes are white, and so on. She learns everything there is no know about color: the physics, the science, how it is used in language and poetry. But this doesn't really tell her what color is even like.

Astus wrote:
Blue Cliff Record, case 88:

Hsuan Sha, teaching the community, said, "The old adepts everywhere all speak of guiding and aiding living beings. Supposing they encountered three kinds of sick person, how would they guide them? With a blind person, they could pick up the gavel or raise the whisk, but he wouldn't see. With a deaf person, he wouldn't hear the point of words. With a mute person, if they had him speak, he wouldn't be able to speak. But how would they guide such people? If they couldn't guide these people, then the Buddha Dharma has no effect."
A monk asked Yun Men for instruction on this. Yun Men said, "Bow." The monk bowed and rose. Yun Men poked at him with his staff; the monk drew back. Yun Men said, "You're not blind." Then Yun Men called him closer; when the monk approached, Men said, "You're not deaf." Next Yun Men said, "Do you understand? " The monk said, "I don't understand." Yun Men said, "You're not mute." At this the monk had an insight.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Care to critique this notion for me?
Content:
Brev said:
I meant that the mind-stream is within the basic space of phenomena.

Astus wrote:
Phenomena are what occur as the mind-stream, instances of experiences that make up a series, i.e. the mind-stream.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Care to critique this notion for me?
Content:
Brev said:
I've long thought that virtually any explanation for existence is nonsense because most fail to be ultimate explanations and hence are themselves unexplained.

Astus wrote:
That's a fine beginning of building up some philosophical system, but it's not relevant to Buddhism. In what way does it relate to the four noble truths, to bodhicitta?

Brev said:
And our mindstream is a dependently designated fiber running through this ocean or static of awareness that only exists in a particular way once it is designated so.

Astus wrote:
Do you mean here that mind-stream exists within a larger mind? That would be a pointless supposition of a larger mind.

Brev said:
the natural way to stop the endless circling is to purify our karma and cultivate the roots of virtue.

Astus wrote:
Cultivating virtue is good, but does not end rebirth.

Brev said:
the only way to permanently free our mindstream from cycling through the various realms of minds is to undo our ignorance of the actual manner in which we exist, i.e. to perceive emptiness.

Astus wrote:
The mind-stream is what is generally called mind, there are no two minds for one being. Perceiving emptiness is realising the emptiness of the mind, that it is without any basis or substance. It is just a stream of experiences that are themselves nothing solid or reliable.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Pyrokinesis, demonstration. Siddhi in Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If you are looking for practices to attain powers, look into the Visuddhimagga, ch 12-13 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf ).

As a side note, looking for powers can come from insecurity. It is natural that beings want to take control and feel certainty. However, it is also a reason for suffering and feeling dissatisfied. Things change and we cannot manipulate them as we wish to, as everything depends on numerous causes and conditions. Even what we call our thoughts, feelings and body are often beyond our control. To contemplate this is how to gain insight into the true nature of the way things are.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Niu-T'ou Fa-Jung & Oxhead School of Ch'an
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is no English language study devoted mainly to the Niutou school, only bits and pieces in other works. For instance: Robert Sharf: Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism, p 39-51.

"By far the most cited Chan master was Niutou Farong, who is cited a total of thirty-three times (including fi fteen times as Rong Dashi; and six times each to Niutou Farong’s Notes to the Vimalakīrti and Huayan sūtras ). If we add the nine references to the work of Niutou Farong’s disciple Niutou Foku ( Wusheng yi ), over 10 percent of all references to Chan faction masters (not i ncluding the generic references to Gude, Xiande, etc.) in the Zongjing lu are associated with the Niutou lineage. The appearance of the Niutou faction in the Zongjing lu is attributable to the strong presence of Niutou lineage masters, like Foku*, on Mt. Tiantai."
*Foku: "Foku established the Foku Chan Cloister 佛 窟 禪 院 on Mt. Tiantai, and Foku’s senior disciple, Yunju Puzhi 雲 居 普 智 , propagated Niutou teaching from the Yunju Cloister 雲 居 院 , revived through the efforts of Deshao."
(Conception of Chan in the Zongjinglu, p 116-117; p297n9)

"fascicle 4 of the Chuandeng lu devotes considerable attention to the collateral Niutou (Oxhead) lineage descended from Daoxin. The Niutou lineage is charted through six generations: Niutou Farong, Zhiyan, Huifang, Fachi, Zhiwei, and Huizhong.
In total, the names of seventy-six masters are mentioned in association with the Niutou faction, seventeen with records included."
(Monks, Rulers, and Literati, p 129)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Sixty five seeds per second is a traditional teaching

Astus wrote:
In what tradition? What treatise?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Oriander said:
Thank you. Please, could you evaluate this 25-years experienced buddhist monk? What he say about? He say about 65 frames/seeds per moment - they create whole world.

Astus wrote:
Besides what DGA mentioned, what he seems to say there is just the general teaching of momentariness mixed with the Yogacara teaching of seeds. However, what is metaphorically called a seed is not just anything but habitual impressions stored in the mind. It is not just any activity, but things that one is conditioned to and thus conditioned by. It can also be added that this is not simply memory or knowing a skill, but what is primarily referred to are karmic attachments, that is, those charged with emotional values that can be simply summed up as things we like and things we dislike.

Here is an example for how habitual conditioning (seeds) affects our perception:

"This is also exemplified by a particular beautiful physical form. When a lustful person looks at it, he takes it to be pure and marvelous and so his mind develops a defiling attachment. When a person who practices the contemplation of impurity looks at it, he perceives all manner of disgusting discharges and finds that there is not a single part of it that is pure. When one who is also a woman looks at it, she may be jealous and hateful to the point where she is filled with disgust, cannot bear to look upon it, and is of the opinion that it is impure. The lustful person contemplates this same thing and regards it as pleasurable. The jealous person contemplates this and takes it as a cause of bitterness. The yogin contemplates this and gains the Path. A person with no particular interest contemplates this and finds nothing either attractive or repellent in it. It is the same for him as looking at earth or trees." ( http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-03.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: 11th Tantric Vow and Shikantaza?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness is the ultimate reality. Shikantaza is embodying prajnaparamita. It does meet the requirement to be called "meditating on voidness", unless what is meant in that samaya is some "let's give some thoughts to the general concept of the lack of substance".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Oriander said:
My understanding about yogacara is correct?

Astus wrote:
Not really.

What Yogacara describes as the teaching of mind only (cittamatra) or cognition only (vijnaptimatra) means that what we experience is given meaning within a mental framework that projects identity and substance, setting up both subject and object. This conceptual framework of defining experiences is habitually maintained from moment to moment and from life to life, as one bases one's actions on one's judgements about one's perceptions, and those perceptions are interpreted according to the mental framework that conceives them. Thus there is a continual feedback between framework - perception - action, establishing habits. As long as one is unaware of this process, one keeps following those habits. The realisation that appearances are cognition only means that one understands how one's concepts about oneself and the world are unfounded, and that they are the products of one's own mind, thus there is no more reason to cling to the conceptual framework as if it were real.

As you can see, it is not about setting up some universal mind or a solipsist metaphysics. It is the point out the processes going on in one's mind in order to attain enlightenment.

Recommended readings:

http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro.html
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Oriander said:
So, how I must to understand the diamond sutra?

Astus wrote:
Regarding appearances as illusory means not assuming a substance within them, or a substrate behind them. In other words, one has experiences, but there is no solid self to experience them. From one moment to another there are instances of consciousness, but no enduring, unchanging mind to be aware of them. Seeing that experiences are without substance and without a solid experiencer, there is nothing left to be attached to. Again, in different terms, one calls things this and that, but those names are just names, they don't represent or address anything solid. Therefore one should know that concepts are without any ultimate reality and they are used only according to conventions.

Here is the origin of that stanza, with the Buddha's explanation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Сreation through perception in Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Short answer: no.

Although Buddhism teaches that ignorance distorts one's sense of reality, it primarily refers to the assumption of a permanent self, because based on that one grasps at experiences and thus generates dissatisfaction. Removing that ignorance does not mean the collapse/disappearance of the world but the liberation from suffering. Although one being may attain liberation, it does not mean everyone else becomes free at the same time. Thus the Buddha taught the path to nirvana to others.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: How dedication works?
Content:
kirtu said:
And in fact there are schools that assert that Buddhas do not see the suffering of sentient beings.

Astus wrote:
Since the earliest scriptures it is taught that a buddha knows his own past lives and sees the way beings are reborn according to their karma. Not seeing that beings suffer would mean being oblivious to their karma. Also, it seems clear from the stories of Shakyamuni that he was very much aware of the mental conditions beings are in. It might be said that dharmakaya and sambhogakaya are not in contact with ordinary beings, but not the nirmanakaya.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: How dedication works?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
of course it is individual and not universal... but other beings and their suffering is coming from our mind. without the seeds for suffering we would not even see suffering or hear suffering.

Astus wrote:
If that were so, buddhas could not know about beings who suffer.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: How dedication works?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
dedication is watering the seeds on the alaya. there are no 'all beings' and no merit.
so in other words: yes

Astus wrote:
The storehouse-consciousness (alayavijnana) is individual and not universal.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 4:41 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
BrianG said:
The blessings are dependent on one's devotion.  It is difficult to develop devotion towards an ordinary dog's tooth.  The reason it brought blessings in the story is because someone thought that it was a relic of the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Exactly as you say. It is one's perception (judgement) of the object that made it something to be devoted to and worshipped. I did not say that ordinary objects are themselves inspirational, quite the opposite. That's why there is Vajrasattva practice and no Mickey Mouse puja. Although it could be said that Mickey has probably more followers/devotees than Vajrasattva, it's just that the philosophies involved are different.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
He certainly created an unnecessary hornet's nest by banning one particular practice, which according to you is completely irrelevant.

Astus wrote:
Irrelevant in terms of efficacy. Not irrelevant in what things symbolise and people associate them with.

smcj said:
you might actually be saying that there is no "source of Refuge" in couched terms.

Astus wrote:
People take refuge in all sorts of things and beings. What makes the Triple Jewel special is that it leads to freedom from all forms of reliance, in other words, refuges. If there were an ultimate refuge it would mean a permanent thing/being.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
Astus wrote:
The object is irrelevant in determining the efficacy, because what matters is devotion. At the same time, devotion is conditioned normally by how an object is perceived. There is the common metaphor of a child in a temple who knows nothing about the various buddhas, bodhisattvas and deities, but is simply awed by the colourful pictures and statues. But once one learns things like who is Vajrasattva, who is Chenrezig, who is Padmasambhava, then those exist within a net of associated attributes, just like other objects of the world. Similarly, while most people know nothing about John of Nepomuk or Gerard Sagredo, to others they are not only people of the past but also active spiritual entities they can interact with. However, while Guanyin and Mary may share some attributes outwardly, they exist in very different contexts and represent different values, therefore, religious practices involving one or the other strengthen distinct mental qualities.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
I am doing the practice. Vajrasattva is doing the purifying. Otherwise I might as well be be visualizing Mickey Mouse and chanting M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E, because there actually is no Vajrasattva doing the cleansing of my karma, right? Mickey too would be just as much "skillful means" as anything else, right?

Astus wrote:
It all depends on one's beliefs. A buddha can't do anything unless one has faith, but a dog's tooth (nb. a dog is traditionally a very lowly animal) can bring immense blessings if one is devoted enough. Apparently the object is irrelevant.

"If you have no faith and devotion at all, you will get absolutely nothing. Without faith, even meeting the Buddha himself and being accepted as his disciple would be quite useless, as it was for the monk Sunaksatra ... and for the Buddha's cousin, Devadatta.
...
When one has confident faith, the Buddha's compassion can be present in anything. This is illustrated by the tale of the faithful old woman who was helped towards Buddhahood by a dog's tooth."
(Patrul Rinpoche: The Words of My Perfect Teacher, p 173)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
pothigai said:
I meant, how do Buddhas/Bodhisattvas benefit beings?

Astus wrote:
It is through giving that bodhisattvas and buddhas benefit beings. There are three kinds of giving (dana paramita): material objects, reverence, Dharma. ( http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-03.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
pothigai said:
How do they benefit beings then?

Astus wrote:
In terms of liberation, gods (Indra, Brahma, etc.) are mostly useless. Nevertheless, just like one person may build a bridge that others use, it is not impossible for gods to be of some assistance. In a similar way, bodhisattvas and buddhas can provide help using numerous means. But in the end it's up to each and every person to develop the factors of enlightenment and attain bodhi.

On the other hand, if one understands that whatever one experiences depends on one's karma - mental conditioning - it becomes clear that even what appears the work of buddhas or maras are only one's own concepts. At the same time, because those are one's own concepts, they are the works of buddhas or maras.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 5:13 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
That depends on what you mean by "savior". Do you think they have not soteriological function? Plus you've just dismissed a whole lot of literature about the compassion of Chenrezig, etc.

Astus wrote:
Is there any sutra or even some school of Buddhism where they say that a buddha or a bodhisattva can actually put a being into nirvana? I have not yet to see one. Although when I write gods I mean gods, not buddhas. Chenrezig is not a god.

smcj said:
But I don't have a problem with the idea of an omniscient Sambkogakaya or Dharmakaya. Do you?

Astus wrote:
If omniscient is understood as literally knowing everything, then yes, there are problems with that. To begin with, it is in conflict with choice, i.e. the classic philosophical problem of fate/predetermination vs. free will. Also, http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/076-sandaka-e1.html contains a number of objections against people claiming omniscience.

smcj said:
Such as....?

Astus wrote:
First and foremost, that there is no clear manifestation of superhuman beings interfering with humans. While innumerable sects and religions claim that it is their god/s doing this and that, none can put forth anything beyond unfounded claims.

smcj said:
If so, then why are all my teachers telling me to do 111,111 Vajrasattva mantras?

Astus wrote:
You do the practice, not Vajrasattva. And there is a nice term in Buddhism for that: skilful means.

smcj said:
Their intention and efficacy is to transform the sentient being into an enlightened being. The sentient being must choose to practice. In the Vajrayana deity practice it is a joint effort, there is a lot more "oomph" to it. Think of it like the difference between an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar. The amplification is coming from somewhere other than the willpower of the guitarist.

Astus wrote:
If buddhas cannot modify beings' minds they cannot make them enlightened or even bring closer to them directly. That does not mean there can be no interaction, it only excludes one's karma being in any way modified by external forces. So, Amitabha cannot put beings into Sukhavati, beings have to establish the required conditions in their minds in order to gain birth there. Same with other buddha-lands.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
it creates problems for us because anything that even remotely reminds us of Christianity sends us into hysterics.

Astus wrote:
I meant theological/philosophical problems, not general materialist antipathy towards spiritual entities. Buddhism is polytheist, but gods are not the saviours of humanity, nor do they really care about them. Also, they are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. A pantheon of powerful benevolent deities who are supposed to help all beings is fine as long as one does not question the various inconsistencies. Since even buddhas are unable to make the slightest change in beings' karma, it's all up to each individual to correct their errors and attain liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 6:19 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
Astus wrote:
Turning buddhas into gods creates a large number of theological problems that are not particularly addressed in any meaningful manner. That is because while on the surface people pray to Guanyin for health, wealth, good weather and such, for those who look for a deeper meaning she becomes the heroine of compassion and wisdom to emulate, and ultimately a manifestation of the nature of mind.

"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."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.095.than.html )

"There is a great castle, which has only one gate. Many people come and go, and pass through it, without hindrance. And no one destroys it and takes it away. That is how matters stand."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 36, tr Yamamoto)

Some works on buddhahood:

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/buddha-omniscience.pdf
https://books.google.hu/books?id=50pEORtu4jQC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=1vGzvLkYs2MC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=uNiW2YElyQYC


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
All that was said was that Dzogchen is not a path of analysis and that Kamalashila's objections were rejected.

Astus wrote:
When I wrote "the very basis of vipasyana as it's been taught since the Nikayas", I meant that it teaches the primary form of analysis. True, not like going through all the arguments of one-many, cause-effect, production-extinction, etc., however, those are not used with mind-only either that Kamalashila also writes about.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
Those definitions seem to support my post.

Astus wrote:
It is used in the context of directly accessing non-conceptuality. It is mistaking a vacant mind as the realisation of emptiness.

So, Patrul Rinpoche writes that when the mind is shocked, there is a mind without concepts, and that is the insight into suchness. And there is another approach, looking at the gap between thoughts, as for instance Dudjom Rinpoche taught:

"In the gap between the last thought’s cessation and the next’s arising, isn't there a fresh, present knowing that has not been modified even in the slightest—luminous, naked awareness? That itself is awareness’s abiding state!" (Wisdom Nectar, p 49)

I think that is the approach Kamalashila criticises.

However, Dzogchen does not stop at that point, and it moves on to integrating movement and appearances in general into the view of the natural state, that way learning gradually that phenomena are not to be grasped, because they are the display of that pristine awareness. Thus it is not enough to have an experience of mind without concepts, but one needs to diligently apply the teaching that experiences arise and dissolve, in other words: self-liberate; or in traditional terminology: they are impermanent. At this point we arrive at the very basis of vipasyana as it's been taught since the Nikayas.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Brev said:
Ah, I see. Isn't it possible that the wonder that Patrul Rinpoche referred to is an awareness beyond concepts that induces wonder?

Astus wrote:
It is an awareness without concepts. Just like when you are frightened by something, there is a moment of strong/bright awareness without being busy with ideas. Or when you are amazed by some fine piece of art or natural phenomenon. But perhaps Malcolm is willing to elaborate.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
I really think it means mental torpor or dullness. It's a faulty attempt at shamatha, like a cow not thinking much as it stands in it's field.

Astus wrote:
The word used is "mūḍha".

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html mfn. stupefied , bewildered , perplexed , confused , uncertain or at a loss about (loc. or comp.) AV. &c.&c. ; stupid , foolish , dull , silly , simple Mn. MBh. &c. ; swooned , indolent L. ; gone astray or adrift As3vGr2. ; driven out of its course (as a ship) R. ; wrong , out of the right place (as the fetus in delivery) Sus3r. ; not to be ascertained , not clear , indistinct A1past. R. ; perplexing , confounding VP. ; m. a fool , dolt MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; pl. (in Sa1m2khya) N. of the elements Tattvas. ; n. confusion of mind Sarvad.

http://spokensanskrit.de/: at a loss about, not to be ascertained, confounding, foolish, uncertain or at a loss about, gone astray or adrift, uncertain about, out of the right place, silly, indistinct, confused, perplexing, wrong, indolent, perplexed, swooned, driven out of its course, simple  [ dull-witted ], stupefied, not clear, bewildered, idiotic.

http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/chi/word/256041/m%C5%AB%E1%B8%8Dha%E1%B8%A5: 癡者 (imbecile / sentimental / stupid / foolish / silly), 呆子 (fool / sucker); tib. glen pa


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
I don't think so. He is addressing a different problem.

Astus wrote:
How so?

Patrul Rinpoche:

"introduced in and upon the very dissolution of conceptual mind"

Kamalashila:

"If it is said that one enters (nonconceptuality) through nonmindfulness and nonattention toward aIl dharmas, that is not reasonable."
...
"when nonmindfulness and nonattention occur, without the discernment of reality how could dharmas' lack of independent existence come to be realized?"
...
"And if the yogin's mindfulness and attention towards dharmas can't proceed because of being bereft of mindfulness or in a state of stupefaction, then how could this completely stupefied one be a yogin?"


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Brev said:
When Kamalashila mentions becoming stupefied, is he talking about engaging in shamatha without vipasyana? If so, then I think the heart of the disagreement might just be about whether resting in the natural state is equivalent to shamatha.

Astus wrote:
The necessity of vipasyana after samatha is discussed elsewhere. The state of stupefaction is used as an example of the suspension/cessation of concepts in order to experience nonconceptuality, as a kind of short cut to realisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
I don't know why you bother citing Patrul Rinpoche, as he merely illustrates my point.

Astus wrote:
Yes, it is clear that there is no contradiction between what you and what Patrul Rinpoche (and others) say. I did not mean to imply that you are misrepresenting Dzogchen or Vajrayana.

What I have tried to highlight is that the amazement/wonder/shock technique in Dzogchen seems to be what's addressed by the quoted passage from Kamalashila.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
DGA said:
At this point, I'm having a hard time tracking what is meant by "conceptual" and "analysis" in this discussion.  In regard to suchness:  it seems to me that The Awakening of Faith of Asvaghosa is precisely a series of contemplations, analytical in nature, delineating suchness.  This text uses a kind of analysis in order to point the reader toward something in particular.  is this an example of analysis, or nothing, or both?

Astus wrote:
Analysis in the context of meditation, i.e. vipasyana, means investigating one's experiences based on the teachings to confirm their emptiness. It is a conceptual process (involves thinking), as one relies on the teachings. So, if one has to consider whether the self is found in the eyes, the seen or the eye-consciousness, one has to be aware of the meanings of eyes-seen-seer, and then observe whether there is anything stable or graspable. The observation part is informed by the teaching - i.e. the instruction to check if there's anything permanent - but at the same time it is also related directly to one's experience of seeing. It is not merely theorising, as some like to think about it, but it is also not suspending one's thoughts.

The AFM contains instructions for both samatha and vipasyana, although it is not in the usual Indian format. There it is during the practice of samatha/cessation that one directly enters suchness:

"All thoughts, as soon as they are conjured up, are to be discarded, and even the thought of discarding them is to be put away, for all things are essentially in the state of transcending thoughts, and are not to be created from moment to moment nor to be extinguished from moment to moment; thus one is to conform to the essential nature of Reality (dharmata) through this practice of cessation. And it is not that he should first meditate on the objects of the senses in the external world and then negate them with his mind, the mind that has meditated on them."

And in chapter 1:

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.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that you kept denying there was a conceptual meditation on suchness and thus, were quoting passages not in accordance with their meaning.

Astus wrote:
The point here is that vipasyana's aim is not just gaining a theory but attaining an understanding through insight into emptiness, and thus it qualifies for at least the first bhumi.

And from previous posts:

Malcolm said:
Vipaśyāna is conceptual. That is its limitation. Plus, Madhyamaka analysis is ultimately dualistic.

Astus wrote:
Of course it is conceptual, and conceptuality is dualistic. Every teaching is within the realm of the conceptual, and the point is to see that what are grasped as real, solid things are actually conceptual and dependent.

Malcolm said:
A conceptual knowledge of emptiness is still a mere concept, and results in being fettered. A simulacrum, not the real thing.

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is based on the mistaken concept of self. Removing that is wisdom. Knowledge of emptiness as a mere concept is not knowledge of emptiness. The conceptual knowledge of emptiness is when the concept of substance is proven to be false.

Malcolm said:
Anyway, such analysis is not necessary in Dzogchen practice, not in any sense at all.

Astus wrote:
At this moment, you are free from all fixed notions of what mind might be, and liberation itself is actualized: “There is nothing there: transfixed in wonder,”
( http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary )

In the 3rd Bhavanakrama, (tr Adam, p 246), Kamalashila writes:

"And if the yogin's mindfulness and attention towards dharmas can't proceed because of being bereft of mindfulness or in a state of stupefaction, then how could this completely stupefied one be a yogin? And in that circumstance, by practicing nonmindfulness and nonattention without the discernment of reality, ignorance itself would become one's habit! Precisely on account of that, the light of knowledge would recede. But if this [yogin] is not bereft of mindfulness, nor stupefied, then how in that circumstance could he undertake nonmindfulness and nonattention without the discernment of reality? For it is not logical to assert that it is precisely in being mindful that one is not mindful, and that precisely in seeing one does not see."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 4:42 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
And a counterclarification from the same text, pg. 153.
Unshakable by the likes of Mārā, when one cultivates suchness with the power of zeal, then the stage of zealous conduct is distinguished on the basis of intense zeal. The bodhisattva existing in this stage, although still an ordinary person, has completely passed beyond all the calamities of a fool and is endowed with innumerable qualities like samadhis, spells, freedoms, superknowledges and so on.

Astus wrote:
And the preceding sentence says: "as long as one does not directly experience the suchness (tattvam) of the selflessness of the personality and of dharmas, (there is) only a very intense zeal"

However, as shown in my previous collection of clarifying quotes, meditation is about direct perception, and through vipasyana  that is what is achieved. The zealous stage is about aspiring to that direct experience, it is the time of practice on the basis of the instructions, required before realisation is attained.

The text continues in the section on zealous conduct:

"But when one would ascertain the non-dual knowledge which is devoid of the forms of the object and subject, then this is the degree of penetration designated "The best (worldly) condition" (agradharma). And this is called "The samadhi without interval" because, in fact, immediately following it one enters into suchness."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
conebeckham said:
And without the experience of tasting honey, all intellectual conceptualizations are inadequate.

Astus wrote:
And that's the point of vipasyana, to bring the teachings to the level of experience. Similarly, knowing of the precepts but not abiding by them has little use in generating merit.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
conebeckham said:
Shall we say that the taste of honey can be adequately grasped by the intellect?  Or must one have first hand experience of the taste of honey to actually experience it?
To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, "analyzing the taste of honey is like dancing about architecture."

Astus wrote:
It is the intellect that tells one that a certain group of experiences are what can be called honey. But that's not the same as not tasting honey. It's just that without intellect you can never know if that's honey or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Brev said:
Definitely makes sense that it seems fishy for analysis to be unnecessary in practice. How could you be sure that wrong views weren't sneaking in if you couldn't analytically identify them as wrong views and correct your view through one-pointed concentration on emptiness?

Astus wrote:
Correct view is first obtained by studying the teachings. Meditation is to confirm their validity and apply it to one's life.

Brev said:
However, aren't there experiences that are certainly within reach that would deepen just about any practitioner's understanding of this or that facet of emptiness?

Astus wrote:
Experiences of impermanence, dependent origination and emptiness are always there, as those are the very nature of experiences. The important thing is to recognise them. Thus no matter what experiences one may have, unless their's nature is realised, there is no insight.

Brev said:
is your objection to the approach of direct introduction that it too is only an approximation and must be supported by analysis, that it is a false path (i.e. not a "spaceship" to see "Earth" from), or something else?

Astus wrote:
If introduction means bringing one's attention to the nature of reality, then it is not different from what one does during analysis. However, if it means simply putting oneself into the realised state, it lacks the cause for insight, therefore it's not possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Thus, still, this shows a yogin who has not yet achieved the path of seeing.

Astus wrote:
Here are some further clarifications then from Adam's translation of the 1st Bhavanakrama, key terms underlined by me:

From the section on moving from reasoning to meditation

"Thus having ascertained the real meaning by means of the wisdom of thinking, one should give rise to the wisdom of meditation in order to directly perceive it."
(p 134)

From the section on vipasyana

"When this is so, one is established in the practical realization of the lack of inherent nature of all dharmas. Because the one who is established there enters ultimate suchness, there is the entry into nonconceptual samadhi. And thus when the yogin is established in the knowledge that has no appearance of nondual knowledge, then, due to his being established in the ultimate suchness he sees the Mahayana."
(p 142)

From the section on meditation on the absolute

"Thus other conceptualizations definitely do not arise for him at that time because of the pervasion of all conceptualizations by conceptions of existence and nonexistence, and because when there is an absence of pervader there is no possibility of that which is to he pervaded. This itself is the yoga of the highest nonconceptualization."
(p 145)

From the section on the bhumis

"Thus in this stage, the bodhisattva is delighted on account of understanding for the first time the suchness that was not understood. Hence this stage is called 'delighted'."
(p 154)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The term " rtogs pa " in Tibetan means either "to realize" or "to understand." Here it means the latter more than former.

The conclusion is not false, it is merely a conceptual approximation that is cultivated on the path of application. And the text does not switch topics, you just are not following the gradualist perspective of Kamalashila correctly.

Astus wrote:
In Adam's translation (p 207):

"When a yogin does not actually hold firmly to the nature of any entity, then he enters nonconceptual samadhi. And he also understands the absence of inherent nature of all things."

And while he uses understanding there, the previous sentence says one realises nonconceptual samadhi, and it is because of that that one can understand emptiness. If the suchness there were just an imagined concept, it wouldn't be nonconceptual samadhi.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, Astus, this part of the text is not talking about the first bhumi. This is talking about heat on the path of application where in fact you reflect on generic concepts of emptiness.

Astus wrote:
That does not really fit with the description of what is performed during meditation.

"In this way, when the person does not firmly apprehend the entity of a thing as ultimately existing; having investigated it with wisdom, the practitioner engages in non-conceptual single-pointed concentration. And thus the identitylessness of all phenomena is realized."

Then that conclusion of vipasyana is false. Or in the following paragraphs it switches topic to describe the path from a different perspective.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
"This is the path of engaging in a union of calm abiding meditation and insight. Its focuses on the image conceptually and non-conceptually." pg. 140.
Thus, "This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness," as I said.

Astus wrote:
According to HHDL's commentary (p 141) it doesn't refer to some image but it's a synonym:

"Then once more continue your meditation on the union of special insight and calm abiding, which is also known as focusing on the reflection both conceptually and non-conceptually."

And Kamalashila continues:

"Thus, through this progress, a yogi should meditate on suchness for an hour, or half a session in the night, or one full session, or for as long as is comfortable. This is the meditative stabilization thoroughly discerning the ultimate, as taught in the Descent into Lanka Sutra."

It is on suchness, not some image of suchness. And that's what is in the text in every place, directly seeing suchness, not simply an image or concept of it.

The quote provided in my previous post states: "apprehends the selfless nature of all phenomena", and that's the very result of the vipasyana. It would be quite pointless to achieve simply a generic concept, since for that there is no need to perform any meditation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Brev said:
Is the argument that analysis alone isn't the only route here basically analogous to the following? You could prove that the earth is roughly spherical by analysis by setting up big pillars, measuring their shadows, and roughly calculating the circumference of the earth based on that . . . but you still wouldn't have the exact shape of the earth because it's flatter on top and bottom and bulges in the ocean, so you'd then have to send expeditions to the North and South Poles, take measurements in the ocean, etc. In the meantime, continuing to insist that earth's not flat would be pointless because that was long ago established and you're onto finer measurements. Or . . . you could just see the shape of the earth from a shuttle.

Astus wrote:
Here's my perspective:

Analysis is measuring the Earth from all angles. Realisation without analysis is saying that measuring takes too long and one should just take a look from space. The problem with that non-analytical approach is that they don't have a spaceship.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:13 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
catmoon said:
A while back Malcolm equated suchness and emptiness.

Can anyone (Malcolm included) think of an example where this doesn't hold? I can't, but I'm a bit foggy on suchness.

Astus wrote:
Suchness emphasises reality as a whole, emptiness emphasises the lack of substance. They are synonyms, but they highlight different aspects. Similarly, no-self is the same as emptiness, but it has a personal emphasis in it, while dharmadhatu is more a universal emptiness, and at the same time dharmakaya is the emptiness of the buddhas' realisation, etc. There are so many expressions that basically mean the same but are used in various contexts.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness.

Astus wrote:
"Thus such a mind in the entity of ultimate bodhicitta included within the path of seeing, which apprehends the selfless nature of all phenomena is generated. Through this achievement one enters into the path focusing on the reality of things and one is then born in the family of tathagatas, enters the bodhisattva category without flaws, turns away from all migrations, abides in the suchness of bodhisattvas and attains the first bodhisattva bhumi (spiritual level)."

Malcolm said:
Many commoners do not really have this idea — first they have to be brainwashed into refuting a self most of them will readily agree they do not have, unless they have a belief in a soul. Many atheists are quite happy they have no soul, and if you tell them their "self" is a cognitive imputation, they happily go along with this idea.

Astus wrote:
Materialists take the body as the self and they are mostly unaware of the mind. Taking something as a self basically means being attached to it and taking it as the centre of one's view of the world. So it is meditation on and the analysis of the body and the physical world that is taught for them. In Kamalashila's method:

"The aggregates, sources of perception and elements in the ultimate sense are nothing other than aspects of the mind. This is due to the reason that when these are broken into subtle particles and the nature of the parts of the subtle particles are individually examined, there is no definite identity that can be found. Due to attachment since beginningless time to imperfect things like physical form, to an ordinary being these things appear separate and outside the realm of the mind. This is like physical forms appearing in dreams. In the ultimate sense, physical form and so forth are nothing other than aspects of the mind."

Malcolm said:
we cannot say a car is nonexistent, even though it is conventional

Astus wrote:
There is no negation of apparent phenomena, rather the pointing out that they are only apparent without any basis or foundation, in other words: empty. Since emptiness is dependent origination, causality is not a problem at all, as long as it is understood what interdependence means. Objecting against dependent origination is not recognising its emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But what I'm pointing out is not a 'special state' - it is seeing through or beyond the machinations of discursive intellect.
Just remind us all again, what is the derivation of the terms 'ch'an' and 'zen'?

Astus wrote:
The machinations of discursive intellect cannot be seen through when it is suspended during absorption (dhyana). So, the Platform Sutra, chapter 4, says (BDK Edition, p 43): "Nonthought is to be without thought in the context of thoughts."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
you did not provide a very detailed presentation.

Astus wrote:
Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/:

"What properly examines suchness from within a state of calm-abiding meditation is penetrative insight."

"When suchness is properly meditated upon with wisdom, purified transcendent wisdom is realised. Since wisdom alone can realise suchness and can effectively eradicate the obscurations, I shall therefore search for suchness through wisdom while engaging in calm-abiding meditation. And I shall not remain content with calm-abiding meditation alone.
What is suchness like? It is the nature of all phenomena that ultimately they are empty of the self of person and the self of phenomena. This is understood by the perfection of wisdom and not otherwise."

"What is thoroughly realised by the mind too is realised as being empty. By realising that, the very identity which is established as the aspect of the mind, like the identity of physical form, etc., is also not ultimately perceived. In this way, when a person does not ultimately see the identity of all phenomena through wisdom he would not analyse whether physical form is permanent or impermanent, empty or not empty, contaminated or non-contaminated, produced or non-produced and existent or non-existent.
Just as physical form is not examined, similarly feeling, recognition, compositional factors and consciousness are not examined. When the object does not exist, its particularities also cannot exist. So how can they be examined? In this way when the person does not firmly grasp on to the entity of a thing as ultimately existing, having investigated with wisdom, then the practitioner engages in a non-conceptual single-pointed concentration. And thus identitylessness of a11 phenomena is also realised."

"In this way one who has entered in the suchness of the selflessness of person and phenomena is free from concept and analysis because there is nothing to be thoroughly examined and observed. One is free from expression and with one-pointed mental engagement one automatically enters in meditation without manifest discrimination. Thus one very clearly meditates on suchness and abides in it."

"If and when the mind is spontaneously engaging in meditative equipoise on suchness free of sinking and mental agitation, at that time it should be left naturally and the efforts relaxed."

Malcolm said:
Obviously, this does not work — case in point, eternalists.

Astus wrote:
Nobody can be forced to do vipasyana.

Malcolm said:
Many people do not have this idea. They meet Buddhadharma and then spend lots of time refuting a self they never believed existed to begin with.

Astus wrote:
The general idea of self includes that it remains the same from one day to another. What not many people have is a more sophisticated soul/atman view.

Malcolm said:
Umm, no.

Astus wrote:
How so? That something is only a conventionally agreed name means that it has no basis beyond the concept.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Of course there is, it is the conceptual emptiness meditated/cultivated during heat on the path of application.

Astus wrote:
Still, Kamalashila does not talk about conceiving emptiness but realising it directly.

Malcolm said:
An experience of permanence is going to a place and seeing the same rock there, year in year out. Does not mean the rock is permanent, but it is the kind of thing that provides common people with their notion of permanence and durability.

Astus wrote:
It is a notion of permanence, a concept, that can be removed by directing them to analyse what they actually experience.

Malcolm said:
No, actually they are not. A lot of Buddhist training involves planting ideas in people's heads that actually they don't hold.

Astus wrote:
Ideas, like the permanence of rocks and other objects? Like the endurance of a real self? Otherwise, yes, there is a teaching to learn, in order to become aware of one's incorrect presumptions and then overcome them.

Malcolm said:
No, Madhyamikas understand nonarising [It is Yogacaras who do not], their problem is clinging to true relative truth.

Astus wrote:
How could it be true if it is conventional? The very meaning of conventional is that it is not true.

Malcolm said:
it is a critique of grasping in different systems, as already explained above.

Astus wrote:
It does not actually address the systems but reinterprets them according to his preferences and thus criticises systems that never existed. It's like those non-Buddhists who attack the Dharma because they misconstrue it as nihilism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
lostitude said:
I don't see why? You can experience something permanent but not always be in the right frame of mind to experience it. It is like perceiving background noise, you actually hear it only if you pay sufficient attention to it.

Astus wrote:
Permanence excludes causality. Being recognised is a change in conditions. Also, if it is one's permanent self, the self is the one that should recognise itself, and since it is permanent, it either always knows itself or never.


